ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pupil Absences

Marcus Jones: What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.

Robin Walker: What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.

Nick Gibb: In the autumn and spring of 2009-10, 45.8 million days of school were missed by pupils. By 2013-14, that figure had decreased to 35.7 million, the lowest number since comparable records began. The number of pupils who were persistently absent has also decreased, from 439,000 in 2009-10 to 262,000—again, a record low level. Time off for holidays has also dropped, by about 1.4 million school days, compared with the same period in 2009-10.

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank the Secretary of State for visiting Nuneaton last Thursday to hold a very positive round-table discussion with local head teachers. Good attendance is the bedrock of improving educational outcomes for our young people. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in thanking the teachers, head teachers and governors in Warwickshire for the solid improvement in attendance in the past year?

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State mentioned to me how much she enjoyed her visit to the George Eliot school in Nuneaton on Thursday and how valuable she found the round-table discussion with the head teachers from Nuneaton and north Warwickshire schools. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) is assiduous in fighting for small businesses and more jobs in his constituency, and that he therefore understands the importance of education. I join him in paying tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for their efforts to reduce pupil absences, particularly in Warwickshire, where the number of school days lost owing to absence has fallen from 5.7% in 2009-10 to 4.2% this year. There have been similar falls in persistent absence.

Robin Walker: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Perry Wood primary school in Worcester? Against a backdrop of falling absence levels in the county, the school has used pupil premium funding to introduce a walking bus and a breakfast club, and it has increased attendance from around 90% two years ago to an average of 96% today.

Nick Gibb: I pay tribute to the teachers at Perry Wood school for the innovative way in which they have reduced absence there. In fact, I congratulate schools throughout Worcester on improving school attendance. In Worcestershire as a whole, overall absence has dropped by a fifth and persistent absence by almost a quarter since 2009, and I pay tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for the work they are doing.

Barbara Keeley: Another reason for school absence is that some pupils are young carers who have duties at home. The burden on young carers was shown tellingly in a BBC film called “Looking after Mum”, which was about a young carer who had been caring for her mother—my constituent—who had had a stroke when the child was four years old. What are Ministers doing to ensure that schools have policies in place to identify and support such young carers who have taken on a burden of care from the age of four?

Nick Gibb: Schools play an important part in identifying young carers and offering them appropriate support. To assist them in that endeavour, the Department has been working with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to share tools and good practice with schools, including a free access e-learning module for school staff. The Department of Health is also training school nurses to support young carers at school.

Bob Russell: Is it still the case that, for the purpose of drawing up school league tables, a pupil in hospital receiving treatment for cancer would be marked as absent?

Nick Gibb: Schools use various codes to report absences. In the case of any illness, chronic or otherwise, there is a specific code. Schools are not judged on the absence levels of pupils who are suffering chronic or other illnesses.

Careers Education (CBI)

Stephen Timms: What recent discussions she has had with the CBI on careers education in schools.

Nicky Morgan: One of my priorities is to ensure that more of our young people are leaving education with the skills to succeed in modern Britain. In October, I hosted a round-table discussion with employers and education sector representatives, including the CBI, on this important issue. We are consulting representatives to examine what further steps we can take to prepare young people for the world of work more effectively, and to ensure that businesses are engaging with schools in meaningful ways.

Stephen Timms: The CBI business manifesto was published last month. It highlights
	“the shameful state of careers provision in English schools”.
	It emphasises that girls in particular are losing out, but states that everyone is suffering as a result of what seems to be the virtual collapse of careers education. Why has the situation been allowed to get this bad, and what is the Secretary of State going to do to fix it?

Nicky Morgan: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was particularly struck by the paragraphs about the state of girls’ education and aspirations:
	“We’re losing out on the contribution women can make because too many girls at school, college or in the workplace are writing off—or are written off from—particular jobs for no good
	reason…Choices should not be closed off to anyone, and the full facts about earnings and opportunities need to be available to all, especially women.”
	That is why one scheme—there are many others—that this Government are supporting is the Your Life campaign, which is supported by more than 200 leading representatives from businesses, education, civil society and government to show how science and maths can lead to exciting and successful careers.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend join me in impressing on local schools the importance of work experience? Will she also congratulate the York, North Yorkshire & East Riding local enterprise partnership on the work it is doing in placing people on work experience and giving careers guidance, together with local employers?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She rightly says that work experience is extremely important, and I pay tribute to the role that LEPs play—both her own and many others across the country. We are working to make the whole education system much more closely linked to the world of work, with more relevant respective qualifications, more emphasis on learning useful skills and greater employer influence over course content.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Secretary of State work with the Association of Colleges to help deliver its call for a careers guidance guarantee?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion and I shall certainly take a look at that. I work closely with the college in my constituency in Loughborough. I will work with any organisations and do anything that will raise the aspirations of our young people and prepare them by giving them the skills they are going to need for life in modern Britain.

Mark Pritchard: When I grew up and went to school in Herefordshire in the 1980s, we had a widespread and comprehensive careers service. That has changed under successive Governments, yet I meet more and more young people who are unsure, post-qualifications, what they want to do with their lives. What can we do to ensure that local and national employers, particularly Her Majesty’s armed forces, get access to schools?

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. At the base of his question is the point that there is no such thing as a career for life any more and that we are all going to have to think about the skills we need to take the first job and then the next job, be it in the armed services, the public services, in business or through being self-employed. There are many examples of excellent schemes across the country where businesses and schools are working together, and our task is to make sure that that good practice is replicated throughout the country.

Yvonne Fovargue: Quality careers advice is essential to support young people in making the right choice, be it academic or vocational. However, recent figures on youth apprenticeships confirm the concerns we have been raising for some time that Government policy is damaging the apprenticeship brand
	and leaving young people behind. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) is right to call out the Government on their failure to deliver for young people. Will the Minister explain why they have failed to deliver on apprenticeships as a quality route for young people entering the work force?

Nicky Morgan: That is an extremely disappointing question because it bears absolutely no relation to the facts. We have the lowest number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—ever on record; and we have more 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships. The hon. Lady should not be talking down our young people and their opportunities—she should be talking them up. Our young people are learning fantastic skills. I do agree with her that the links between vocational and academic education should be treated completely equally. That is exactly what this Government have done with the delivery of almost 2 million more apprenticeships.

STEM Subjects

Neil Carmichael: What steps she is taking to promote the study of STEM subjects at school.

Nicky Morgan: Under this Government we have seen record numbers taking STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—with maths now being the most popular A-level. That is due to excellent teaching and several supporting programmes, but of course more needs to be done. We have reformed qualifications and the curriculum; we are recruiting top graduates into teaching with increased bursaries and scholarships; we have established maths hubs; and, as I have mentioned, we have the Your Life campaign to change young people’s perceptions of science and mathematics.

Neil Carmichael: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that business and education come together and talk to each other to ensure that we match up supply and demand for skills in the engineering sector?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is right. I have previously said from this Dispatch Box that the estimates are that we need 83,000 more engineers every year for the next 10 years, and I have also said that they cannot all be male. That is why campaigns such as Your Life and other things such as tomorrow’s engineers week, which the Government are already supporting, are extremely important. I continue to look at all the best ways that businesses, schools and educators can work together to make sure that our young people are prepared for life in modern Britain.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State is aware that the earlier we can start loving numeracy, the better—it is so important She was not there, but only last week one of her junior Ministers was with me, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and Johnny Ball to launch the early years numeracy strategy that came out of our all-party group. Will the Secretary of State put a bit of muscle behind that?

Nicky Morgan: Well, I’ll think of a number! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this Government will put their weight behind the campaign to get more of our young people studying maths subjects and studying them to a higher level. We have already introduced the maths hubs, and are supporting teacher exchange programmes with places such as Shanghai, which are already leading the way in maths education. We are seeing more of our young people doing better at maths earlier, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, that is absolutely critical.

Heather Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Fiona Kendrick, chief executive officer of Nestlé in my constituency, is providing inspirational leadership? She is leading the campaign to get more science, technology, engineering and maths into schools so that more young people, especially young women, can enter the fields of engineering and technology. Such an inspirational change will improve the quality of education in this country.

Nicky Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome Fiona Kendrick’s comments on the need to bridge the gap between education and employment and the need for industry to play its part. I think I was with my hon. Friend when I visited Bombardier, which is also in her constituency, and met the fabulous Kirsten, who is doing incredibly well as an apprentice welder.

Seema Malhotra: It may be a “Blue Peter” link to say that I was at primary school in Heston with Zoë Ball. Very recently, I was talking to Heston residents about the opportunities for young people in the local economy, which is full of light industry. Exposure to the world of work at a young age makes a huge difference to confidence. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve work experience opportunities for under-16s in science, technology and maths subjects?

Nicky Morgan: I agree that work experience is extremely important, and I should like it applied to pupils as young as possible. As a first step, I would like young people to get advice about the jobs that are out there—I am talking about labour market information. But if the hon. Lady’s Government had not introduced so much red tape and so many health and safety regulations, employers might not be so put off taking on people for work experience.

School Nursery Classes

Nick de Bois: What steps her Department is taking to help more schools offer nursery classes.

Sam Gyimah: Nurseries in schools are at the heart of our plans to offer flexible, affordable and high-quality child care. To deliver on that plan, we are removing the red tape that stands in the way of schools offering provision to two-year-olds. We have also invested £100 million in early years child care places, of which a third are being created in schools. We are allowing child
	minders to offer wrap-around care in schools, and championing calibration between schools and private, voluntary and independent nurseries.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Keeping a child in the same school when they transition from nursery to primary school is in the best interests of the child and indeed the school. Although I welcome steps to examine moves towards amending admissions codes for the most disadvantaged, may I urge him to keep an open mind about widening this policy right across nursery schools?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In many cases, parents want their children to continue into reception year in the school in which they attended nursery, but that should not come at the expense of parents who, for whatever reason, choose different early years provision for their children. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are amending the admissions code for the most disadvantaged pupils. Of course I always keep an open mind, and we will keep this matter under review and consider it later.

Stephen Pound: One of the best ways of extending nursery provision is to have supportive chairs and boards of governors. Many schools find it very difficult to find governors, and many are paying them. May I ask the Minister what his personal—not his departmental—opinion is on the principle of paying school governors? By the way—interest declared!

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman is asking about the payment of governors in the early years sector. As he is aware, the early years sector is very diverse. Child minders and PVI nurseries do not have school governors. Some maintained nurseries do, but they do not have to pay them.

Alison McGovern: There will continue to be a shortage of nursery class places until we address the issue of pay for nursery school staff. Top bankers’ pay went up by 7% last year, and that of those working in nursery schools by barely more than 1%. What will the Minister do about that?

Sam Gyimah: I welcome the hon. Lady to her post, but I do not agree with the numbers she cites. In fact, the pay of nursery staff has gone up, according to independent statistics. More important, most of the provision is in the private sector. The Government cannot prescribe wages for people in the private sector, but we can cut taxes so that people can keep more of what they earn, and that is why we have raised the personal allowance to £10,000.

Vulnerable Children

Ann Coffey: What recent assessment she has made of the vulnerability of children missing from school and home to child sexual exploitation.

Edward Timpson: Nothing is more important than keeping children safe. To better protect missing children, we have introduced tougher statutory guidance and
	regulations, improved national data collection and published new practice standards for social workers. Ofsted has found that many, but not enough, local authorities are making progress, so we will continue to establish where that is not happening, and why, and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure children’s safety.

Ann Coffey: A recent Ofsted report entitled “The sexual exploitation of children: it couldn’t happen here, could it?” said that most local authorities inspected are not making the connection between child sexual exploitation and children missing from school. Does the Minister agree that every local authority should keep a centrally held persistent absence list that could be cross-referenced by police and children’s services to identify children at risk and patterns of local child sexual exploitation?

Edward Timpson: I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and acknowledging the significant and important contribution she has made over a long period, and more recently through her report “Real Voices” on child exploitation in Greater Manchester. It poses many of the right questions, as she has this afternoon. I agree that it is absolutely right not only that all schools must inform the local authority of pupils who are missing education but that local authorities must identify pupils missing from school and take action as a result. Those duties already exist and Ofsted’s thematic review made it clear that in many cases that was not happening because of very basic practice failures across a range of agencies and organisations. The number of persistently absent children has dropped by 40% since 2010, but we need to highlight even more those children who are particularly vulnerable for the reasons the hon. Lady has outlined. I know I have a meeting with her in a week or two to discuss these matters further and I look forward to having a conversation to see what progress we can make.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that protecting children from sexual exploitation must include better education of children and parents on the potential dangers of the internet? To that end, will he praise the work of Warning Zone in Leicestershire?

Edward Timpson: I agree that in the new digital age, when children come into contact with the internet at an ever younger age, we need to ensure that children have the understanding and skills to make good choices. Part of that is ensuring that parents and teachers can acquire those abilities. That is why we have ensured that internet safety is taught at all key stages at school, and I am sure that the work that has gone on on the ground—not just in his constituency, although I praise that, but throughout the country—is helping to ensure that we get that message across.

Stephen McCabe: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her excellent report “Real Voices” and, in particular, for the consideration she has given to the voice of these young people. Her recommendations have a significance way beyond Greater Manchester. Anyone who reads the report cannot fail to be struck by the repeated references to the benefit that many of these vulnerable young people derive from working with peer
	mentors. Does the Minister share Labour’s interest in this approach, and does he have any plans to develop the model? Has he considered using the innovation fund as a means of stimulating it?

Edward Timpson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s insight, analysis and recommendations as to what more we can do to ensure that children who need their voice to be heard have the requisite support from people who can provide them with the guidance and trust that are often lacking among other professionals. I am happy to talk to him about his suggestion. We have had some extremely exciting bids in this area through the innovation fund programme, which I will be able to say more about in the coming weeks. As I say, I shall be more than happy to discuss the subject with him in due course.

Tessa Munt: Somerset county council has withdrawn regular checks on children educated at home, stating that it will contact families only if it is
	“advised that Elective Home Education is not happening or is unsuitable.”
	Does the Minister recognise that it is necessary to check systematically so that children at risk are identified, along with parents and carers who need support to deliver education, because otherwise school is often the only place where children at risk can have contact with other adults?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady refers to the recent Ofsted inspection in Somerset and the need for Somerset’s children’s services to make marked improvements in its response to ensure that children are safe. The example she has given is an element of that on which it needs to improve. I will not comment on the specific work that needs to be done, which has been well documented. She knows, as do her colleagues across Somerset, that I am determined to do whatever it takes to ensure the children in Somerset get the support and care they need so that they have a safe and fulfilling upbringing.

School Leaders (Recruitment)

Simon Wright: What steps she has taken to ensure that the best school leaders are recruited to work in the most challenging schools.

David Laws: From 2015 the Government-funded Talented Leaders programme will match up to 100 excellent leaders with challenging schools, including in Norfolk. We also fund the charity Future Leaders to develop the leadership skills of aspirant head teachers.

Simon Wright: I welcome the extension of the Talented Leaders programme into Norfolk. Excellent leadership is vital, and turning around a struggling school needs a team effort, with teachers, governors and parents all pulling in the same direction. What efforts will be made to ensure that the Talented Leaders programme supports a whole-school approach?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need not only to get talented head teachers and leaders into those schools, but to ensure that other members of the school community are part of that. That is why,
	under this programme, each school will be entitled to a leadership sustainability grant of £50,000, which is ring-fenced for staff and governor development in order to build leadership capacity for the future.

Bill Esterson: For the third year running the Government have missed their teacher recruitment targets. For example, only 67% of physics places have been filled—the figures are 88% for maths and 44% for design and technology. Does the Minister accept that the teacher recruitment crisis is leading to real problems in key subjects and in leadership roles right across the country?

David Laws: We certainly accept that for some time now there have been challenges when recruiting to some of the core subjects, including some of the core scientific subjects, and that is why we have significantly increased the bursaries available in those area. However, we should also acknowledge the great successes there have been in recent years in getting more outstanding graduates into the teaching profession, and we will do more of that in future.

Philip Hollobone: Some of our country’s best leaders can be found in Her Majesty’s armed forces. What success are we having in recruiting former soldiers, sailors and airmen to become teachers in our schools, and what success are we achieving in getting more male teachers into primary schools?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is right on both points. The latest statistics show that we are having more success in recruiting male teachers into primary schools. We are also doing more, through our Troops to Teachers programme, to use the talents of many people who have served our country in the armed forces and can now serve our education system, too.

Phil Wilson: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the leadership of Wellfield community school in my constituency, under head teacher Linda Rodham, on improving the school’s Ofsted rating from poor to good in four terms, and on the improvements we are seeing in qualifications year on year? Does that not prove that there is no smell of defeatism in the schools of east Durham?

David Laws: I am delighted to hear about the success of that school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I hope that other schools in the region, and in those regions were there has been underperformance, will look at was has been done there and realise that there is nothing inevitable about failure in any part of the country.

Nursery Schools

Graham Stuart: What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing nursery schools to become academies.

Sam Gyimah: Many maintained nursery schools are delivering high-quality early education, often in disadvantaged areas where that provision can make the
	greatest difference. Our aim is to improve parent access to high-quality early-years provision, enable a diverse market and ensure that nurseries are part of that market. However, the current legislation does not allow maintained nursery schools to become academies, but we will keep that under review.

Graham Stuart: I welcome the Minister’s response—or I think I do—that this is going to be kept under review. Too many maintained nursery schools—centres of excellence anchored, for the most part, in the poorest communities in the country—have been lost under successive Governments. Would not academy status give them the opportunity to ensure that they continue to help the Government in raising standards for all and, most importantly, closing the gap between outcomes for rich and poor?

Sam Gyimah: I welcome the enthusiasm of the Chairman of the Education Committee for maintained nurseries. I have visited Pen Green maintained nursery in Corby, which is an excellent example. He mentioned harnessing their quality. We have invested £5.5 million in teaching schools so that maintained nurseries can spearhead this and help to spread quality across the sector. He is right to indicate that 4,000 schools have benefited from academy status. As I said, we will keep the situation under review as opportunities arise to reconsider the legislative framework for maintained nurseries.

Meg Munn: Many nursery schools would like to become co-operatives but, by law, they are not currently allowed to do so. I welcome the Secretary of State’s interest in this area. May I press the Minister on allowing for an amendment to be made to the Deregulation Bill? That could happen very quickly and it would allow nurseries to join other schools in becoming co-operatives.

Sam Gyimah: The Secretary of State rightly takes an interest in this. In fact, all members of the Government recognise the quality of maintained nursery schools, and we will take all necessary steps to make sure that they can grow and continue to thrive.

Private Schools

Ian Lucas: If she will make an assessment of the public benefit contributed by schools in the private sector.

Nicky Morgan: Public benefit tests are a matter for the Charity Commission. Schools in the independent sector make a significant contribution to the UK economy estimated at £9.5 billion per annum. Many have partnerships with state schools to share resources and teachers, drawing on the strengths of each member school to improve outcomes for all children across the partnership. One example is the Wimbledon schools partnership between King’s College school and over 20 state schools. Independent schools also act as academy sponsors, and 11 have been approved to do so.

Ian Lucas: Does the Secretary of State therefore reject Sir Michael Wilshaw’s assessment that public schools offer the state sector only crumbs from the table?

Nicky Morgan: Sir Michael Wilshaw and I have had a number of discussions on many different subjects, including this one. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I would to all Labour Members, that this is happening already. We would like more partnerships to be growing, but there are already plenty of partnerships and collaborations between state and private schools. I wonder whether he would agree with Andrew Halls, the headmaster of King’s College school in Wimbledon, who recently said:
	“The independent schools are under a bit more threat than we’ve been for a long time. The state sector has really improved.”
	That is what happens with four years of a coalition Government.

Damian Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one element that lies behind the debate on the public benefit of private schools is the need to ensure that pupils in the state sector have an ever-increasing chance of receiving the best academic education? Does she also agree that grammar schools play a significant role in providing this opportunity and that their work across the country should be suitably valued?

Nicky Morgan: At the heart of what my right hon. Friend is asking—I completely agree with it—is that we want every child in this country to go to a good or outstanding local school. I welcome diversity in our schools system. I also welcome the fact that, after four years of this Government, over 800,000—heading towards 1 million—more children are in good” or outstanding schools receiving a life-transforming education to prepare them for a life in modern Britain.

Tristram Hunt: A prep school in Hampshire that claims £180,000 tax relief just for showing its pupils’ art work on the walls; a ladies college in Yorkshire that claims £110,000 tax relief a year while profiting from renting out school facilities: enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State now join Anthony Seldon of Wellington college, head teachers at the United Learning trust and the majority of the British people in supporting Labour’s plans to break down the barriers in English education and require private schools to work alongside state schools to share best practice and raise attainment across the country?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman appears to have answered his own question—in fact, his own policy—by pointing out the successful collaborative partnerships between private schools and state schools going on across the country. His previous school has decided that it will not be building any buildings or unveiling any statues to the hon. Gentleman any time soon. He ought to think about the Labour Uncut website, which said:
	“It is not so much that Tristram Hunt has the wrong policies for education; it is that he appears to have none.”
	Last week’s announcement has not changed that.

Tristram Hunt: This is the politics of the status quo. Once upon a time the Prime Minister said—[Interruption.] I thought Members on the Government Benches would want to listen to their Prime Minister. He said he wanted to end the “educational apartheid” between private and state schools. Now we have a Secretary of State afraid to take on the vested interests, happy to
	allow £140 million of tax relief a year without demanding partnership and progress. Is this a principled stand against our policy or, like her flip-flopping opposition to gay marriage, is she just waiting for more people to get in touch before she changes her mind?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has shown yet again by his question that he has no vision or plan for education in this country. He would be letting down the children of this country were he ever to be allowed anywhere near the Department for Education. In a recent GQ Magazine interview he said:
	“But what I have found challenging is that you can be so busy without achieving much, meeting upon meeting and then I think, ‘Where is the outcome? What have I achieved?’ Sometimes you can tick boxes but not feel you have made progress.”
	That, so far, is the story of Labour’s education policy.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that there are outstanding private schools throughout the country, such as University College school in Hampstead and St Mary’s school in Calne in my constituency, which make a gigantic contribution to the local society, but nearly always under the radar, nearly always by secret means and through a thousand different links across the community? Those could never be judged or counted by any organisation; they are none the less to be encouraged.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The issue with the recent policy announcement is that much of the collaboration and partnership between schools, whether private and state or within state schools, is already happening. I have already mentioned that 11 independent schools were approved as academy sponsors. Last month we announced that 18 new primary independent/state school partnerships had been awarded DFE funding, so this is already happening. As usual, Labour is late to the party with zero policy.

Priority School Building Programme

Andrew George: When she plans to announce the outcome of the next phase of the Priority School Building programme.

Craig Whittaker: When she plans to announce the successful applicants for the Priority School Building programme 2.

David Laws: Our Department is in the process of analysing the expressions of interest for the next phase of the Priority School Building programme, and we expect to announce successful schools in January.

Andrew George: I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the excellent applications from Humphry Davy school and Helston community college in my constituency. The successful applicants will be anxious to know how quickly they can crack on with their rebuilding projects and by what date they will need to complete them. Will the Minister elaborate on that?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is a great champion of all the schools in his constituency and has been lobbying very hard indeed, as I am well aware, for the two schools
	that he names. I can assure him that we are processing these bids as rapidly as possible and that we will announce the successful schools in January. That will allow the project to move ahead as soon as possible.

Craig Whittaker: The previous Secretary of State, when he visited Todmorden and Calder high schools in the Calder Valley, said that they were among the worst that he had seen in England, but they never qualified for rebuilding under Building Schools for the Future because they attained too highly and did not have deprivation. Can the Minister confirm that under the Priority School Building programme, the criteria of attainment and deprivation have been scrapped and that schools that are dilapidated stand a chance of being rebuilt?

David Laws: I can confirm that. It is right that such a programme should look at the condition of all schools and prioritise those that are in most need of help, rather than targeting either attainment or deprivation. I am aware that there are a number of bids from schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We will look at those closely and announce the results in January.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister give a higher priority to schools in areas where the number of pupils is increasing hugely year on year? In our areas, the amount of money available to spend per pupil is squeezed down because the numbers are counted in October one year, but the number of pupils in the following 12 months increases exponentially.

David Laws: I think I have good news for the hon. Lady, because not only have this Government been considerably more generous than our predecessors in the allocation of basic need funding for our school system, but we are now allocating basic need funding for new school places for three years. In January, we will make another announcement of funding for basic need for 2017-18.

Free Schools

Graham Evans: What recent assessment she has made of the performance of free schools.

Nick Gibb: The performance of free schools is continually reviewed as more and more are inspected by Ofsted. Based on the inspections undertaken so far, the majority of free schools are performing well. With 24% rated outstanding, they are more likely to be rated outstanding than other state-funded schools.

Graham Evans: In Weaver Vale, I am proud to have worked with the founders of the Sandymoor free school, which has grown from strength to strength since it opened in 2012. Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the school’s achievements, including its first Ofsted report as a good school with outstanding leadership?

Nick Gibb: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the governors—I understand that he is one—and the staff at Sandymoor school. The school’s motto is “Ordinary people. Extraordinary achievements.” That is right in one respect, in that it is extraordinary to secure a good grading from Ofsted within the first two
	years of opening a new school, but there is nothing ordinary about the head teacher, Andrew Green-Howard, or his staff at a school where, to quote Ofsted, the
	“majority of students are meeting or exceeding…ambitious targets…in mathematics, English and science”,
	and behaviour “is very impressive.”

Keith Vaz: May I, through the Minister, thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for free schools, Lord Nash, for their visit to the Falcons school in Leicester? I know that they enjoyed their visit. We were disappointed not to see the Minister there as well. I know that, apart from the education provided, the Secretary of State particularly liked the vegetable samosas that the children had made for her. Does the Minister agree not only that the Falcons school is the first Sikh school in Leicester, but that it has a first-class future?

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Falcons school. I wish I had been there: I am a great fan of vegetable samosas, but I am more of a fan of free schools of whatever faith that provide high-quality schools and high-quality education up and down the country.

Mr Speaker: It is always useful to have a bit of information about Ministers’ eating habits.

Justin Tomlinson: I have championed the New College bid for a new free school in North Swindon, which would help to deliver much-needed high-quality school places in my growing constituency. Will the Minister comment on the importance of local groups coming together to set up free schools?

Nick Gibb: I thank New College and other proposers that have submitted free school applications for their hard work and commitment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work and support for the New College bid. Free schools are giving local communities and teachers the freedom to come together and establish new high-quality schools that are raising academic standards. We are currently assessing all wave 8 applications against the published criteria, and we will soon write to applicants to notify them whether they have been selected for interview.

Julie Hilling: We are constantly told that free schools are outperforming all other maintained schools. Will the Minister comment on his own Department’s admission that not only have a very small number of free schools actually been inspected, but that the
	“findings cannot be interpreted as a balanced view of the quality of education nationally”?

Nick Gibb: Of course, many of the schools have only just opened—they have been open for only one year or two years—and not all of them have yet been inspected. However, many have been inspected, and 24% of free schools inspected have been judged outstanding. That is under the tougher framework that Ofsted now applies. The rate is higher than for schools as a whole.

Social Workers

Bridget Phillipson: What steps she is taking to ensure that local authorities recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified children and family social workers.

Edward Timpson: Since 2010, we have invested more than £0.5 billion in social worker training and improvement. The number of registered children and family social workers has risen to 24,845. Programmes such as Step Up to Social Work, the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment and, more recently, Frontline are all righty focused on bringing high-quality people into social work to improve the retention and status of social workers and, most importantly, the outcomes for children.

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the need to attract more people into social work in the difficult area of child protection, but is it not important for councils to strike the right balance between newly qualified social workers and experienced staff? If we expect newly qualified social workers to carry too high a case load and we do not provide the right support, that will not only damage retention, but have a negative impact on vulnerable children. What will he do to address that further?

Edward Timpson: I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that newly qualified social workers get as much support as possible when we bring them into the profession, so that they see it as a legitimate career to remain in and so that too many of them do not leave it too soon. That is why the chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler, recently proposed an approved child and family practitioner accredited status, and said that we must ensure that we have accredited supervisors and a practice leader in all children’s services to lead practice from the front. On top of that, there has been better collaboration across the local authorities in areas such as the north-east, where the hon. Lady’s constituency is based, to look at social worker need in the region and keep vacancy rates as low as possible.

Stuart Andrew: Will my hon. Friend expand on the contribution that programmes such as Frontline and Step Up to Social Work are making to bring high quality people into social work? What plans does he have to continue with them?

Edward Timpson: Frontline and Step Up unashamedly attract the brightest and best graduates into social work, making them very much the Teach First of social work. They have been extremely successful, with 25 people applying for every place in Frontline. We have just announced the fourth cohort of Step Up to Social Work for January 2016 and we are supporting a third year of Frontline. That will ensure that high-quality graduates go into social work and will be its future leaders. It will also help to improve the status of social work across the country.

In-year Admissions

David Ward: What steps her Department is taking to make additional resources available to schools in areas that experience high levels of in-year admissions.

David Laws: We have allowed local authorities to use a mobility factor in their local funding formulae to target additional funding at schools that had a high proportion of pupils entering in-year in the previous year.

David Ward: I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the figures for Bradford. If he has, he will know why I am asking this question. Recently, the Prime Minister said that
	“there is no doubt that some communities face particular pressures… I think a fund that can more directly help those communities would be very worthwhile and that is what we are going to put in our manifesto”.
	If there is a need right now, why should the money not be made available right now?

David Laws: I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this matter. In 2014-15, Bradford local authority allocated almost £1 million to schools that experienced high in-year fluctuations in pupil numbers. In addition, it allocated £1.7 million to help schools provide new places to cope with population growth. In January, we will allocate further basic need funding across the country.

Academies and Maintained Schools (Oversight)

John Cryer: What recent representations she has received on the National Audit Office’s report, “Academies and maintained schools: oversight and intervention”, published on 30th October 2014, HC 721; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Gibb: I have received no representations on the National Audit Office’s report. The Department will reply to any recommendations the Public Accounts Committee makes in due course.

John Cryer: Is the Minister aware that the NAO report points out that the Department for Education finds it difficult to judge the value of various school interventions? Does he agree with that assessment? If he does not agree with it, why not?

Nick Gibb: We do not agree with that assessment. The report is factually accurate, but we do not believe that the interpretation the NAO has put on the facts is correct. The oversight of our schools is very clear: the oversight of academies is very clear, the oversight of maintained schools by local authorities is very clear, and the oversight by Ofsted is very clear. We are seeing a rise in academic standards across maintained schools and across academies and free schools in this country.

Topical Questions

Gareth Johnson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Nicky Morgan: On Friday evening, I attended the Social Worker of the Year awards, which is an inspiring occasion that recognises the work of many in the profession. I thank them for the warm welcome that they gave me and my team. Last week, the early years foundation stage results showed an increase in the number of children reaching the expected levels, which is an important step in ensuring that more children are ready for learning. I also welcome the recent figures that showed a drop in bullying. That is an important priority for me. We recently invested more resources in supporting schools to tackle bullying, including £2 million to help schools address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender bullying.

Gareth Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening of a university technical college in my constituency, which is the first of its kind in Kent? Such colleges are a fantastic innovation that help to satisfy the increasing demand for skilled engineers and scientists. The UTC will add to the diverse range of educational establishments that is available in my Dartford constituency.

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Leigh university technical college, and I am delighted that young people in his Dartford constituency now have the opportunity to attend a UTC. They are an important part of our education plan to ensure that young people leave school well educated and, as he said, well prepared for careers such as those in engineering.

Kevin Brennan: Recruitment for initial teacher training was 108% against target in 2010, but it is now down to just 93%. Head teachers are having to travel abroad to recruit, and the chairman of the teacher training advisory group has warned that places such as Dover, Great Yarmouth and Blackpool will be at the back of the queue for teachers. We warned that that would happen but there has been nothing but cold complacency from Ministers. I think it is one of the only policies that the Liberal Democrat Minister for Schools still agrees with. When will he get a grip on it?

Nicky Morgan: I am sure that the Minister for Schools can answer for himself, but I doubt that that is the only policy he agrees with. Some 32,543 trainee teachers started undergraduate or postgraduate initial teacher training in 2014-15—236 fewer than last year. The shadow Minister might want to reflect on the fact that one reason more teachers are attracted to the profession is the recovering economy, yet the economic legacy that his Government left us was a weak economy. We want to make teaching an attractive profession. It is already highly respected, but it will be less attractive given the shadow Education Minister’s proposals to make all teachers swear an oath, which I think was met with universal derision.

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend has a strong commitment to teacher training. Will he join me in supporting a
	Fens teaching and learning centre based in Wisbech that will support not just north Cambridgeshire but also west Norfolk and south Lincolnshire, and help with retention, recruitment and talent management?

David Laws: I am happy to welcome that and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that proposal. He will know that in the year ahead, as a consequence of representations from him and other hon. Members from Cambridgeshire, we are increasing funding for Cambridgeshire schools by 8%, or £23 million. That will certainly help with the recruitment problems and issues that he mentions.

Julie Hilling: My constituent, Julia, came to talk to me about the plight of supply teachers who are now paid considerably less than the classroom teachers they cover, despite needing a wide range of skills and the ability to adapt quickly. What will the Minister do to regulate supply teacher companies to ensure that schools and teachers are not being ripped off?

David Laws: We are not intending to over-regulate that sector, but I agree that we must ensure a proper deal for supply teachers. They form an important part of the school system, and the flexibility and freedom that we are giving schools to run their own recruitment, as well as additional resources through the pupil premium, is allowing schools to tackle those problems.

Nick de Bois: Some Labour councils are frustrating the growth of primary free schools by building annexes to local education authority schools, even though they may be miles from the secondary school, which often means that a less rigorous process is followed to establish the new school. Will the Minister look into the matter, and would he welcome examples of where it is happening?

David Laws: I would be happy to look into that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we allocate basic need and maintenance money directly to local authorities, and the free schools programme is managed directly from our Department. If he wishes to provide me with examples of this issue, I will happily look into them.

Alex Cunningham: The decision by the Education Funding Agency to halt the move by Academies Enterprise Trust to privatise a range of academy services from teaching assistants to ground maintenance in one huge £400 million contract, has been welcomed by schools, trade unions and staff, many of whom saw it as a mechanism to drive down wages and reduce other terms and conditions. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her personal intervention, but will she outline what advice she has given to academy chains such as AET about the need to concentrate on the poor performance of many of those schools, rather than on partnerships that drive money away from our children?

Nick Gibb: Academy chains want to find efficient ways of providing back office services, but the hon.
	Gentleman is right to say that chains that are under performing, including the AET chain, are receiving the close scrutiny of the Minister responsible.

David Mowat: With the advent of the new curriculum, the Government have moved away from a nationally recognised, standardised system based on levels, and schools are now free to choose from myriad different assessment frameworks. Is the Minister confident that consistency will be maintained, and what work is being done to ensure that all frameworks are fit for purpose?

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The old system of levels was flawed. It merely gave the illusion of consistency. In reality, the standard of a particular level varied from school to school. The national curriculum, on the other hand, sets out very clear expectations for each key stage. The national curriculum tests in reading, maths, grammar, punctuation and spelling at the end of key stage 2 will tell pupils’ parents and teachers how children are performing against very clear expectations.

Robert Flello: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The logistics sector is probably, if one takes all elements of it, the biggest industry in the UK, yet all too often children in our schools have no knowledge of the career opportunities in that sector. What will the Government do to ensure that children in our schools get to know about the sector, the fantastic careers available to them and the fact that in some ways it could almost offer a job for life?

Nicholas Boles: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. He was not here for the first bit of Question Time, but I am delighted he has turned up for the second bit—otherwise I was not going to get an outing at all. It is very important that young people understand the opportunities available in the logistics sector. The National Careers Service now has specific allocation to ensure that it does more work with schools. In any area of the country like his, where the logistics sector is vital, it should contact schools directly to seek opportunities. Schools are often crying out for employers who are willing to come in and talk to young people about the opportunities they can offer.

Duncan Hames: Schools’ efforts have ensured the successful launch of universal free school meals. In Chippenham, Redlands primary school is bidding for a kitchen pod so it can begin to serve hot lunches, and at Holt primary school lunches are served from the staff room, which is also where the washing up is done. Will the Minister look favourably on those schools, and other growing schools, that lost their kitchens long before we introduced free school meals?

David Laws: I will certainly look further at this issue and at the particular schools my hon. Friend mentions. He will know that we have recently allocated a further
	£25 million for school kitchen and dining room improvement to allow us to tackle the neglect of school kitchens and dining halls, which has gone on for too long. I will look very closely at the bids he mentions.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Minister, for the benefit of the House, enlighten us as to which independent statistics he prayed in aid in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)? My hon. Friend was using statistics from November this year produced by the Office for National Statistics’ annual earnings survey.

Sam Gyimah: I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with the answer.

Edward Leigh: Last week, a primary school in my constituency at Middle Rasen was marked down from “outstanding” by Ofsted for being too British. That follows other faith schools that have been marked down because they are falling foul of the Secretary of State’s new British values. Let us be honest: not a single traditional Catholic or Anglican school preaches intolerance in this country. When will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that we have freedom of faith in our faith schools?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend will know, if he has read the Ofsted report carefully, that the school was marked as “good” right across all the categories on which Ofsted marks, not just on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education that the school provides to all its pupils. He will also know that school standards on the requirements on schools to actively promote fundamental British values, to teach a broad and balanced curriculum and to have regard to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education given to its children, have been long in the drafting. They have, of course, come into sharper relief since the events in Birmingham. I agree with him that all good schools—including all faith schools, of which I am a huge supporter, and Church schools—already do a huge amount to teach their young pupils about life in modern Britain. We want all pupils to have mutual respect and tolerance for each other and for people of all faiths.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The Minister knows that the number of children put forward for adoption has halved in the past year. The Government’s unrealistic time scales have meant that social workers are left with no option but to hold off issuing care proceedings, resulting in a logjam in social services departments and, in some cases, increasing delays for children. Will the Minister accept responsibility for this situation and urgently reconsider this ill-thought-out policy?

Edward Timpson: That is simply not true. We have seen a record rise of 60% in the number of adoptions under this Government. On the back of the judgment in RE B-S, there has been a misinterpretation of the law, but the law on adoption has not changed. We are prepared to do everything we can for all those children whose plan is for adoption, who still await care as we sit here and who still endure the delays and unfortunate practices preventing them from getting into loving,
	permanent, stable family homes. We will do everything we can to get rid of those delays and give them the best possible start in life, which is exactly what they deserve.

Philip Davies: May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? In its report, Ofsted marked down Middle Rasen school because:
	“Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society.”
	Do the Government really think that that should be a factor in determining whether a school is outstanding? Most people in this country think it is a load of politically correct nonsense.

Nicky Morgan: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I am afraid I have to disagree with him. I think that what most parents in this country want is for their young children and students to receive a broad and balanced curriculum, to be prepared for life in modern Britain and to have their horizons broadened, not for doors to be closed. That is exactly what we are looking for in all schools. The difficulty with his point is the assumption that children at that school will never leave Lincolnshire, which I do not think is the case.

Debbie Abrahams: Today’s report by the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted the increasing gap between rich and poor families and its effect on children. It states that in spite of measures such as universal free school meals for infants, the Government are failing to meet their commitment under the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly to protect the most disadvantaged children. Does the Secretary of State regret the decisions of the Government that have led to such a damning report?

Nicky Morgan: I will take a close look at the report, but what I most welcome is the fact that this Government have spent billions of pounds on the pupil premium, which schools are using and spending to raise educational attainment. We have seen the gap between the poorest and richest pupils narrowing as a result of the Government’s policies.

John Leech: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to award an additional £300,000 to Burnage academy for boys, reflecting an increase of nearly 100 extra pupils in-year. May I urge him, however, to bring forward a change to the funding formula to ensure that schools that suffer from dramatic changes in numbers in-year do not have to keep coming begging to the Government?

David Laws: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very strong case he made for this school at the end of last week. As a consequence, this morning we approved popular growth funding of almost £300,000 for the school. It is particularly important to award such funding where the change in pupil numbers is due to popular growth changes, and I will look more widely at the points he raises.

Barry Sheerman: What sort of spell has the Secretary of State cast on her Front-Bench team? I have never seen a bunch of numpties with such a lack of vision and passion. I went to five
	schools in my constituency on Friday. They are crying out for new teachers. They cannot recruit. What will she do about that?

Nicky Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for a team with lack of vision, he ought to look to his party’s shadow Front-Bench.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. For the record, the use of the word “numpties” is arguably tasteless and a matter of subjective opinion, but I do not think it constitutes a threat to order.

Road Investment Strategy

Patrick McLoughlin: I would like to make a statement about our plan to invest £15 billion in England’s strategic road network. It is a new, five-year funded plan, backed by significant reform to make sure that it will happen.
	New schemes and new action, set out in one investment plan for the first time ever—this is a fundamental change for the better, and we need it because the strategic road network is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. Whether people drive or cycle, or travel by bus and coach, it matters; when people buy goods from the shops or travel to work, it matters. The strategic road network needs to work well and it needs to improve. It carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight, and it is busier than ever. Motorway traffic has increased by almost 50% in the last 20 years. Traffic across the entire road network has doubled since 1976, and we have not invested enough to cope with this growth. Our motorway network has hardly expanded since the 1990s. Our trunk A roads are often of variable quality and are running at capacity. Forecasts show that traffic will continue to grow and the problems will get worse.
	This Government are responding. We have started construction on 20 major schemes, six of which are finished already—schemes that will add over 300 miles of new lanes to our strategic road network—and we have also committed to major new investments, such as the £1.5 billion in improvements to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, but this is just the start. Today I am pleased to set out details of a much bigger plan, which will hugely improve our strategic network in all parts of England—an ambitious, funded and achievable plan.
	In shaping the plan the Government have kept three things in mind: first, that action on our roads must be just one part of a much wider commitment to improving our transport infrastructure. We already have a five-year investment plan for our railways, which will see £38 billion spent on improvements and maintenance by 2019. We have also supported work on a northern powerhouse, with faster rail links across the Pennines, so I do not see better roads as an alternative to investment in rail, airports or ports. They are part of the same thing: building a transport network that is reliable and fast.
	Secondly, we have to keep in mind changing technologies. Our road network as it stands today was designed for the vehicles and standards of the ’60s and ’70s, but new fuels and new digital systems offer immense opportunities in the years to come and we must be ready to take them. Already, smart motorways offer a big increase in capacity, and Britain is becoming a world leader in low-carbon technologies, including through the £500 million of Government backing for low-emission vehicles, so it is right that we continue to invest in the network for the future, not just rely on the one we have today.
	Thirdly, we must make sure that investment in our road network improves lives and the environment and does not harm them. That means schemes that are thought through and that address long-standing problems such as the essential new tunnel at Stonehenge, which will both extend the dual-lane running on the congested
	A303 and massively improve the situation of the world’s most famous prehistoric monument. It also means that as we develop our strategic road network, we must make sure it serves the needs of every user, for example by cycle-proofing new sections and making the £100 million investment in better cycling routes across 200 priority locations that we announced last week.
	To do all that we need to reform. Until now, the Highways Agency has been hamstrung by annual budgets, which have made a mockery of long-term planning. It has been inefficient and has held our roads back. That is going to change. The Infrastructure Bill now before Parliament aims to create a new Government-owned company to improve and operate the network, with a watchdog to make sure that motorists get what they have been promised, and it is backed by a five-year funding settlement already announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This will see investment in enhancements to the strategic roads network triple by the end of the next Parliament to £3 billion a year.
	That is why the Government can proudly say that we are on the driver’s side, and in today’s road investment strategy we have the proof—in total, 84 new schemes, more than 1,300 miles of new lanes, including 23 new sections of dual carriageway, 400 new miles of lanes on our motorways, junctions that work, bottlenecks unblocked and jams cleared. In addition, Members have contributed to the work of the six feasibility studies launched last year to find solutions to particular challenges. This has been a valuable process and has helped to shape the road investment strategy. I am pleased to say that we have not just been able to act on some of the feasibility studies, but that we are acting on all of them.
	Let me now set out in some detail what will happen, starting with the south-west, a region whose vital transport links have been neglected, but under this Government they will not be left behind. Today I can announce that as a result of the A303 feasibility study we will bring motorway-quality journeys to this key route. This will be a £2 billion investment, starting with a 1.8 mile tunnel where the road passes Stonehenge. It is part of over six miles of new dual carriageway between Amesbury and Berwick down, and there will be three miles of new dual carriageway between Sparkford and Ilchester. That will be followed by further work, including linking the A303 to the M5 at Taunton with a new dualled section. Also in the south-west, we are upgrading the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross. This will extend the express route to Camborne from the M5.
	Let me now deal with East Anglia. The A47 is a vital east-west link between this economic powerhouse, the midlands and the north. As a result of the feasibility study, I can announce substantial work to the east and west of Norwich, upgrading North Tuddenham to Easton, and Blofield to North Burlingham. This will create 30 miles of continuous dual carriageway around the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has continued to highlight the dangers of the Acle straight, so I am pleased to be able to announce a £10 million fund for safety measures and investigations into the long-term future of this hazardous road. Other schemes include the £280 million upgrading of the A428 between the Black Cat roundabout and Caxton Gibbet. This will create an express standard road between Cambridge and Milton Keynes.
	In the midlands, we are committing £20 million to upgrading the Chowns Mill junction between the A45 and the A6, and junctions along the A52 around Nottingham will be improved. Junction 10A of the A14 will be built, opening up a substantial development site.
	In the north-west, the port of Liverpool will benefit from a £250 million upgrade on the link between the docks and the motorway, and we will also act on the trans-Pennine feasibility study, which will cut jams through a new link road to Glossop. There will be new passing lanes on the A628 and dualling of the A61. We will commission a new feasibility study focusing on the M60 around Manchester, working closely with the local transport authorities. We will consult on the options around Mottram and Tintwistle while keeping in mind the scenic importance of this area on the edge of the Peak District national park.
	In the north-east and Yorkshire, two further feasibility studies on the A1 will lead to improvements around Newcastle and a significant improvement to the road towards the Scottish border. This is a main link between the two capitals of the United Kingdom and it has been made clear that action is needed, so I can announce that we will invest more than £600 million to improve the A1 Newcastle-Gateshead western bypass and to dual the A1 north of Newcastle between Morpeth and Ellingham. Work will be done on tackling the notorious pinch point at the Hopgrove roundabout on the A64.
	Finally, in their commitment to all parts of England, including the north, the Government have not forgotten that the south needs good roads too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will be pleased to hear about the junction work on the A34 around Oxford, and we are looking at the long-term future for this road. Ashford will benefit from a new junction 10A on the M20, facilitating growth in the south-east of the town. Junction 30 of the M25 will see huge improvement, strengthening access to ports in Essex. As a result of a further feasibility study on the A27, improvements will include a new dual carriageway bypass around Arundel, and improvements to the road junctions in Worthing and Lancing. Furthermore, £75 million has been ring-fenced for the A27 east of Lewes.
	This is a comprehensive package for all parts of England. It is funded; it is committed; it will bring change. It sits alongside our much wider investment in better transport, including a transformation of our railways. There will be proper co-ordination with work being done by local transport and Network Rail. I commend the statement to the House.

Michael Dugher: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. However, the whole country has had advance sight of these projects, first when they were announced in June 2013 and subsequently at the time of their re-announcement in November this year. This latest re-announcement represents not so much an upgrade of the nation’s roads as an upgrade of the Government’s press releases. If the Government were as good at
	upgrading roads as they are at making announcements about upgrading roads, life would be considerably easier for Britain’s hard-pressed road users.
	The Secretary of State is right to talk about the vital importance of our road network to families and businesses throughout the country, but is this not a classic case of all talk and no delivery from the Government? We know that they have failed to deliver, not just on roads but on their infrastructure promises. Will the Secretary of State confirm that infrastructure output has fallen by more than 11% since 2010, and that only a third of the projects in the national infrastructure plan will have started by 2015? If the prehistoric builders who began work on Stonehenge had taken the approach to construction that the Government are taking, we would still be waiting for the first stone to be erected four and a half thousand years later. Is it not high time that the Government backed Sir John Armitt’s proposal for an independent national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs? Why do Ministers disagree with—according to the CBI—89% of businesses about the need for such a commission?
	We support proposals to tackle congestion hot spots, and we support long-term funding for roads, but given the Government’s track record, we will be looking at the detail very carefully, and scrutinising their plans against clear objectives. Those objectives are that the public get value for money, that the schemes support economic growth, and that the schemes deliver tangible improvements for road users.
	Labour spent £94 billion on the road network between 1997 and 2010, delivering significant improvements in both strategic and local road networks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, in marked contrast, the Government’s record includes the cancelling of schemes for roads such as the A14 and their subsequent reinstatement, a process that wasted millions of pounds; promises of private investment on which they failed to deliver; and the repeated issuing of deadlines for the completion of improvements, which they missed time and time again? We know that the Government cut £4 billion from Labour’s planned road investments in 2010. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced today includes no money in addition to that which the Government have previously announced?
	The Secretary of State said nothing about tackling the desperate condition of many of our local roads, and the pothole crisis throughout the country. The Department’s own statistics for this year show that spending on local authority minor roads has fallen by 20% since 2010. The latest figures also reveal that over 2,250 more miles of our local roads now need maintenance. That is the equivalent of the distance from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again. What is the Secretary of State doing about the urgent need to improve the condition of those local roads?
	Let me now comment on some of the individual proposals that the Secretary of State has announced today. First, we favour the long-term investment in our roads that the road investment strategy provides, but when will the Government present firm proposals for the new strategic highways company? Secondly, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the possible impact on the five-year funding settlement of a delay in the proposed reform of the Highways Agency?
	Thirdly, the £l00 million for cycle schemes and cycle-proofing is welcome, but cyclists and transport planners are right to ask what the Government are doing to deliver much-needed long-term investment and planning for cyclists. Fourthly, will the Secretary of State publish the environmental impact assessments of all the proposed road plans?
	Finally, we know that the current Government’s sudden interest in roads has more to do with the forthcoming general election than the transport needs of the country. This is a sad attempt at motorways for the marginals, new lanes for soon-to-be-defeated Liberal Democrats, and trunk roads for Tories about to be turfed out by Labour.
	Ministers will be judged not on what they say they will do after the next election, but on what they have actually done since the last election. The sad truth for Britain’s hard-pressed road users is that this is a desperate pre-election move from a Government who have failed to deliver on our nationally strategic roads, and when it comes to our important local roads, the reality is that things have got much, much worse.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I heard in part of that rant a commitment to support a roads investment strategy. That is much needed in this country. The simple fact is that we have had such a strategy for the railways for the last few years, and we should have one for the Highways Agency and our strategic roads, because big projects like this do take time. On the idea that somehow we have ignored these projects, I would point out that since 2010 we have completed eight major road schemes left to us by the last Government, and we have completed a further six started by this Government. We have also started construction on a further 14 schemes. Mr Speaker, because you like short replies I will not list them all, but I could easily do so if I needed to.
	On funding for local highways, between 2005 and 2010, at the time of the last Government—when the hon. Gentleman was a spokesman for the former Prime Minister and for some time did the job of writing his press releases—local highways maintenance funding was £3.7 billion. Between 2010 and 2015, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the spending on highways authorities has been £4.7 billion. So, yes, Mr Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that we have had to cut some schemes that were announced in the very late days of the last Government, but we have also invested in the roads programme—and we have invested substantially, and we will continue to do so.

Michael Dugher: What about local roads?

Patrick McLoughlin: The answer I have just given was on local roads. As I said, between 2005 and 2010 the funding was £3.7 billion and between 2010 and 2015 the spending going to local authorities is £4.7 billion.
	Today we have set out some ambitious programmes, because I am ambitious for the roads of this country, but that should be set alongside the ambition that we have also laid out for the railways and the investment we are making in them, which is seeing more people use the railways today than at any time in our history. We have
	also got to make sure our road network is sufficient for future generations. That is what today’s schemes will achieve.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the details. They were set out in the written statement I made this morning. Four documents explain what will be expected of the new roads investment strategy and the new highways department.

Peter Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for helping in the seats identified by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), but for giving me the information that the Labour party is going to challenge me in Worthing. There was clearly support for dualling in Worthing and either side of it. There are clear benefits for safety, in air pollution reduction, and for environmental protection for the other roads and the countryside. Were the Dutch to come to the A27, they would say, “Why haven’t you put this dual carriageway in a long time ago?”

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a strong case for dualling the road around that particular part of his constituency, and we would certainly want to work on that with him and other Members in the area.

Louise Ellman: This renewed announcement is certainly very welcome, but does it not mean that the assessment made by the Institute for Public Policy Research that 62% of transformational infrastructure investment is in London remains exactly the same?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady, the Chairman of the Select Committee, says that this is a renewed announcement. Yes, the figure was set out last year but we are now putting the flesh on the bones in terms of what that figure will buy. I know that her Committee will want to look at the figures in more detail, but when she looks at what we are doing, she will recognise that we have struck a good balance across the whole country. She makes the point about what has happened historically regarding investment in London, but those figures are made larger by the huge investment in Crossrail. I am also keen to see investment in the rest of the country, spread across the whole of England.

Henry Bellingham: I warmly welcome the announcement of investment in the A47. Is the Secretary of State aware that that artery is vital not only to our regional economic success but to west Norfolk’s future? Now that the road has been designated a key strategic route, does he agree that today’s announcement should be a precursor to the dualling of the whole route?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have already been accused of being over-ambitious. I am sure that my hon. Friend will repeatedly make the case for the dualling of the whole of that route, but the plans that we have outlined today will go a long way towards providing some of the shorter-term improvements for the road.

Nick Brown: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the importance of the A1 linking the Tyne and Wear
	conurbation with the Edinburgh-Glasgow conurbation. I also welcome the work that he has announced today, but it will still leave 25 miles of single track that ought to be dualled. Will he set out his plans for the future dualling of the road on the English side of the border?

Patrick McLoughlin: In Yorkshire and the north-east, there will be 26 schemes worth £3 billion, including 18 new schemes worth £2.3 billion, the A1(M) to Newcastle will be fully open by 2017 and the A1 will be dualled to Ellingham, 34 miles north of Newcastle. So I think we have made a start in the right direction. It is a pity that that start was not made in the 13 years when the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had responsibility for these matters.

Mike Thornton: This investment, which will include improvements to the M3 and the M27, will be a particular boon to my constituents, although more work needs to be done on quietening the M27. Does the Secretary of State agree that the dualling of the A303 and the A358 in the south-west, the dualling around Ellingham and the vital reduction of black spots on the A30 will represent a boon for the economy in north Cornwall and the area around Berwick-upon-Tweed and a help for local businesses, as well as helping to reduce pollution and carbon output as a result of the reduction in congestion?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that a good transport system will lead to fewer emissions, which will be welcomed right across the House. As far as the south-east and London are concerned, we are talking about 29 new schemes worth £3 billion, with 18 new schemes worth £1.4 billion.

Ben Bradshaw: Given that investment in transport infrastructure has fallen significantly under this Government, and that the Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor made exactly the same promise about the A303 in December 1996, I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I take today’s reannouncements with a tad of scepticism. Given the huge economic damage to the south-west whenever our main rail artery is severed, does he agree that tackling the vulnerability of our rail infrastructure has to be our region’s greatest priority?

Patrick McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman slightly absurdly chastises me for something that was said in 1996. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a different Government between 1997 and 2010, of whom he was a member. There must therefore have been 13 years in which he failed to make any progress whatever for his area, so I will not take too many lessons from him on that. I agree with him on the question of resilience in the south-west, however, and I am keen to ensure that we look at that whole matter. That includes the railways, but it also involves improving the road network, which has been sadly neglected. The planned improvements for the A303 and the A30 that we have announced today will have a substantial effect on the area, and will be of great benefit to the south-west.

Simon Burns: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the gratitude in mid-Essex at his announcement that he has listened to representations over the past year or so and will be upgrading to three lanes the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford and from Chelmsford to Colchester? That is a strategic feeder road into the east of England and the port of Felixstowe, so it is particularly welcome that the Secretary of State is acting to deal with the congestion and the problems that have, for too long, been associated with that road.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. In the east of England we are talking about 17 schemes worth £3 billion, of which 15 are brand new schemes worth £1.5 billion. He has been a strong advocate for the improvements of the roads to Chelmsford.

Robert Flello: One of my colleagues should have mentioned our also having to suffer the Deputy Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. Today’s statement talks about roads and previous statements have dealt with rail, but what we need for the first time—probably since the Romans—is a proper integrated transport statement. When are we going to have that?

Patrick McLoughlin: An integrated transport system would address the different components of the transport world, and we have done exactly that by having a rail investment programme and a roads investment strategy. The hon. Gentleman did not point out the amount of schemes in the midlands, so it is perhaps worth pointing that there are 31 schemes in the midlands worth £2.9 billion, with 17 new schemes worth £1.4 billion. This is good news not only for the midlands, but for the construction industry, as it can plan properly to get the right skills and the right people in place.

Nicholas Soames: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the already excellent work done recently on the A23, but ask him to have regard in his future announcements to those of us in constituencies where there is very high demand for new housing and where the infrastructure simply cannot cope with existing requirements?

Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on this, which is why when addressing transport in the whole one cannot just rely on the roads and instead one also looks at the railways. That is why I am particularly pleased that we have managed to find so much money, given the economic problems we face at this time, for enhancements on our rail structures as well.

Alison Seabeck: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about the importance of resilience in our rail network in the south-west, and I am sure we are all awaiting the statement on Wednesday with great interest. He talked about reforming transport networks. As part of these much-publicised reforms, does he intend to extend the national strategic transport corridor to Plymouth?

Patrick McLoughlin: I want to see all parts of the United Kingdom well served. A huge amount of investment is already planned on the roads leading to Plymouth and that is very important.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome the announcement of the first ever roads investment strategy, which I know is the culmination of several years of careful preparation by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is the five-year funding deal that is likely to be transformational and to open up efficiency opportunities in both procurement and the supply chain, which will ensure that these schemes can be delivered?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, and may I say to my hon. Friend how grateful I am to him as although he did not specifically deal with this issue, we did discuss it in general when he was in the Department? He is absolutely right in what he says; we have seen that as far as the railways are concerned—the long-term planning for the rail investment strategy is very important. Likewise, the construction industry will be welcoming this statement as far as its long-term planning is concerned, because it also means that the industry should be able to take on apprentices and plan and train right.

Mark Reckless: Is it right that costs in respect of the Medway tunnel should continue to fall to local council tax payers, when almost every other toll in the country is part of the strategic roads network and, therefore, funded by the Highways Agency?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point to me. It is amazing how things change on various issues. He will no doubt write to me on the matter.

Robert Halfon: White van man and woman travelling to and from Harlow will welcome the investment in the M11. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £50 million will be spent on upgrading junction 7 of the M11? For the future, will he also look at junction 7a?

Patrick McLoughlin: Can we get junction 7 sorted out before we move on to junction 7a? I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about improving the road structure, because although this may—something that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said—help certain constituencies, it actually helps motorists in general who come from every kind of constituency.

David Anderson: This morning, when the Chancellor talked about the opening of the A1 north, he mentioned improvements in Northumbria, a kingdom that has not existed for centuries. Perhaps someone should have a word with him about the geography of this country. Last week, the Chief Whip said that the opening of the A1 was all down to the Tory candidate in Berwick. This morning, the Business Secretary said that it was all down to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The truth is that both those people have done sterling work, as have lots of Members on the Opposition Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). May I ask the Secretary of State why
	he has come to the House hours after he spoke on the radio? Does that not show contempt for this House and for the rules that you, Mr Speaker, have made?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is true that Anne-Marie Trevelyan has made many representations about the road, but so, too, has the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pointing to himself and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). They doubtlessly made representations, but what I say is that we are not making representations, but taking action. There are many more Members making representations than delivering. The hon. Gentleman chastised me for giving an interview, but I gave no interviews until after I had laid a written ministerial statement this morning.

Alan Beith: In thanking the Secretary of State for his announcement of substantial dualling and further improvements on the A1 in my constituency, may I also thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, without whom these things do not happen? The Liberal Democrats will stay around, making sure that the promise is kept, and continuing to campaign to have dualling the whole way from London to Edinburgh.

Patrick McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others, including the Chancellor, have made many representations about this particular road. I fear that it needs no advocacy from me.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the road investment strategy is an England-only plan and will therefore lead to full Barnett consequentials of around £750 million for Wales over the five years?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is an all-England plan, and the Barnett consequentials will follow.

Alan Haselhurst: As the unemployment rate in my constituency has now fallen below 1%, it is obvious that the many jobs that will be filled in my constituency, not least those at Stansted airport, will be for people coming from outside my immediate constituency. In that context, does my right hon. Friend accept that the M11 junction 7 improvement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) referred, is extremely important, as is the completion of the A11? Will he assure me that he has not completely forgotten the link between the A120 at Braintree to Marks Tey to what will be the much-improved A12?

Patrick McLoughlin: There are a number of whole-route technology upgrades to the A12, but I will certainly go away and investigate the specific point of my right hon. Friend.

Jonathan Reynolds: As the MP and former local councillor for Mottram and Hollingworth, where the new trans-Pennine investment will go, I am obviously extremely pleased. Ours is a problem that will be fixed only by new investment in new capacity and that is what I want for my area. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and also
	the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). He and I have campaigned together on this issue since 2010 and we were told that we had no prospect of success, yet here we are with this good result today. The Secretary of State will understand that there is a huge hunger for further details in my area. Can he give us any more information on the time scale of establishing a route and on whether he believes that a public inquiry will be necessary?

Patrick McLoughlin: The planning procedures will necessarily have to be gone through and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the details set out in the road investment plans and strategies that accompany today’s statement. I pay tribute to him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) for working together on this important matter and will check the wider implications for Mottram and Tintwistle.

Oliver Heald: As my right hon. Friend knows, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) have been campaigning for a long time to have the A1 widened between Welwyn and Stevenage. I thank the Secretary of State, because this has blighted Hertfordshire for a long time. Widening the road, allowing the extra running and the motorway technology that he is introducing are very welcome, so may I thank him on behalf of Hertfordshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I know that he is meeting the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), tomorrow to discuss these issues and will no doubt want to look at the plans in more detail.

Jim Cunningham: Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned projects that are under construction. In the past, I have raised the question of the Tollbar junction just outside Coventry and the Whitley roundabout. We know that the work has to be done, but there have been delays that have prompted questions about business investment in the Coventry area. There are also delays related to transport problems in the area. This is a serious problem and I have asked the Secretary of State to look into it before. Will he look into it again and see what can be done?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that in and around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there have been a number of pinch point improvements. These sometimes lead to delays and to considerable frustration while the work is being done, but if he has a specific case that he wants me to consider I will of course do so.

David Tredinnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvements at Dodwells bridge and outside the MIRA enterprise zone on the A5 near Hinckley in my constituency. Will he give serious consideration to further dualling of the A5 in the direction of Tamworth and the M42 because of the importance of the A5 as a relief road when there are problems on the M6 and other surrounding motorways?

Patrick McLoughlin: I would point out to my hon. Friend that in the midlands we have 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. I am obviously always interested when there are specific problems and if there are problems with opening up areas for investment I would want to consider them separately.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State’s statement refers to the £250 million upgrade of the port access road in Liverpool. The road goes through a largely residential area and there will undoubtedly be large concerns among people living there about congestion and the impact on their homes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested for the south-west, will the Secretary of State also considered the potential for improving rail access for freight from the port? That should be considered very seriously, rather than our just improving the roads. Rail is a key part of the solution, too.

Patrick McLoughlin: We must consider all these issues across the board. We have seen a substantial increase in freight travelling on the railways. My understanding is that there are two possible routes for the scheme to which he refers and we will obviously want to discuss with local communities which should be the way forward.

Tessa Munt: I thank the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Chief Secretary of the Treasury for meeting my Somerset colleagues and me to hear the case for the planned improvement works for the A303, which will benefit businesses, tourists and visitors to Somerset and which I warmly welcome. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor about helping businesses further by considering the case for cutting VAT on tourism so that the west country can compete equally on cost with western European holiday destinations?

Patrick McLoughlin: Mr Speaker, there are certain places where the Transport Secretary treads with some peril and I think that answering that question on VAT rates and different businesses might be one of them.

Diana Johnson: I did not hear any announcement about investment in roads in Hull. If the Secretary of State is really serious about investing in transport infrastructure, when will he make the announcement about the privately financed electrification of the line to Hull, which we need desperately?

Patrick McLoughlin: If memory serves me correctly, I have made some announcements on Castle street, which runs through the centre of Hull, and on meeting the local enterprise partnership to talk abut definite improvements. I think that I also announced at Transport questions a few weeks ago an increase in the GRIP—governance for railway investment projects—funding to look at the whole process for electrification. I think that we have made more progress on delivering infrastructure in Hull than was made in any number of years when it was represented by a number of distinguished other people.

Nicola Blackwood: After years of my pestering, the Transport Secretary will know exactly how welcome today’s new announcement
	of £50 million for the A34 will be for my constituents, who suffer daily misery on that road, but will he ensure that the new feasibility study does indeed find a long-term, deliverable solution to the A34’s unsustainable capacity problems, and will he promise me not in any way to limit his ambition when it comes to the A34?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hope that the announcements I have made today will go someway towards alleviating the congestion on that particularly busy artery, about which my hon. Friend has made many representations. I am sure that we shall have further such meetings to see what more can be done to improve the whole route and to make it an express route that also serves her constituents.

Debbie Abrahams: I, too, welcome today’s announcement, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) in his hope that we can work towards an integrated transport strategy. Given that one in 12 deaths are linked to poor air quality in some areas, reducing the average life of Britons by six months, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these developments do not reduce air quality?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have two points for the hon. Lady. First, congested traffic causes more air pollution than traffic that is managing to move along. Secondly, the Government are investing over £500 million in ultra-low emission vehicles and encouraging their roll-out. We are also seeing car companies investing substantial sums of money in new technology.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the completely new money being put into a new junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering and praise the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), for visiting the site. The new junction will unlock millions of pounds of new private sector investment in Kettering. Without that announcement, traffic in Kettering would have been in grave danger of grinding to a complete halt.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. He is quite right that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited his constituency and that the new junction 10A on the A14 is contained in the new road investment strategy.

Stewart Jackson: It is a matter of public record that Labour spent next to nothing on transport infrastructure in the greater Peterborough area during 13 years in power, yet over the past four years we have had £43 million for a remodelled railway station, new rolling stock, better and faster trains on the east coast main line and road improvements on the A1139 and Paston Parkway, and this morning we heard the announcement of upgrades to the east and west of Peterborough. My constituents will be puzzled by Labour’s response, which is “Where did it all go wrong?” Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Patrick McLoughlin: I certainly agree that my hon. Friend’s constituency has seen substantial transport infrastructure investment, which is right and necessary. We need to continue doing that, because there is a lot more work to be done. I am pleased that he has welcomed today’s
	announcement. I very much hope that the Opposition, despite the muddled response from their spokesman, will endorse this plan. If they do not, they need to say which of the schemes they would stop.

Edward Leigh: When it comes to cancelling road schemes, I am not sure that we need to be lectured by the party of Lord Prescott. Leaving that aside, we are at present borrowing £100 billion a year and we cannot magic money, so will the Secretary of State assure us that every scheme will meet a rigorous business case on wealth creation and eschew all political pressure and vanity projects? If that means, by the way, that we just have to lay another road alongside the A303 at Stonehenge and not wait another 40 years for a tunnel, let us get on with it.

Patrick McLoughlin: I partly agree with my hon. Friend, but I diverge from him in one area, because if we are to build in the Stonehenge area we must do the right thing both for the environment and for that particular ancient monument, which is so important. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at other examples relating to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Hindhead tunnel, which has been very beneficial to the environment.

Nick Herbert: Severe congestion at Arundel damages both the local economy and the environment because traffic is forced up through the south downs. Storrington in my constituency has some of the worst air pollution in the south-east, so I welcome today’s statement and the announcement of an Arundel bypass and thank my right hon. Friend. Does he share my surprise that Opposition Front Benchers should criticise this Government for delivery when it was the previous Labour Government who cancelled the Arundel bypass?

Patrick McLoughlin: No, the Opposition’s line does not surprise me. It is a great pity. I have been to see the route supported by my right hon. Friend, which I think will make a huge difference to Arundel. The amount of traffic backing up on that route at present is bad for Arundel, the environment and passengers.

Neil Carmichael: I certainly welcome the improvements to the A417 Air Balloon roundabout; the Secretary of State will know from personal experience just how devastating congestion there can be. Does he agree that the delivery of improved logistics for manufacturers across my constituency is a powerful endorsement of this Government’s long-term economic strategy?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have visited that roundabout with a number of hon. Friends from that area. There is no doubt that it needs to work. It is a very sensitive area and it will take some time to evaluate exactly what the right scheme for it is. My hon. Friend is right. It is a bottleneck and I think the proposal will have a transformational effect not just on his constituency, but on the rest of the haulage industry.

Simon Wright: I am grateful for the investment in the A47, including upgrading the A47-A11 Thickthorn roundabout. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will deliver the scheme
	required to relieve pressure on one of Norfolk’s busiest roundabouts at a time of rapid planned growth in and around the south of Norwich?

Patrick McLoughlin: I announced several points that will affect that particular area. They will go a long way to relieving some of the congestion to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think that is welcomed by most Members in East Anglia.

Charlotte Leslie: I very much welcome the announcement of a new junction on the M49 to support the enterprise zone in Avonmouth, which was a local enterprise partnership priority. Could the Secretary of State reassure me that the Government are also considering rail for that area so that this extra junction does not create extra traffic chaos, particularly given the enormous planned housing development there, so we can we can have a western hub as well as a northern hub?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has been to see me about rail infrastructure in her constituency. I said then that we would work with her on her suggestions. I stand by that commitment and we will continue to work with her.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Congestion at the Dartford crossing blights road users in my constituency of Thurrock, particularly those connected with the logistics industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for investing in junction 30, which will alleviate that, and, indeed, for the successful introduction of free-flow tolling at the crossing, which commenced this very morning. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that constituents in Thurrock are very concerned about the options for a new lower Thames crossing. With that in mind, will he encourage Transport for London to do its bit to introduce new road traffic capacity to cross the Thames?

Patrick McLoughlin: The free flow started yesterday and I am watching it very carefully. I think it will be a great improvement in the area. We need to do that and to look at the other options. I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is also for other authorities to try to alleviate the pressure as far as that particular crossing is concerned.

Jonathan Djanogly: With the A428 now included as a named scheme, together with the A14 proposals and now the A1 feasibility study announcement, this Secretary of State and this Government are showing a profound understanding and commitment to developing the infrastructure needed for my constituency and the whole of the east of England. Will he say a little more about the timing of the feasibility study for the A1?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have already spoken to my hon. Friend, who came to see me a few weeks ago, about the Cambridge to Milton Keynes route, which, for him, is a first move in the right direction. He is absolutely right about what we have to do in the longer term on a road investment strategy. We have done it for the railways and we should be very pleased that we are going to do it for roads in future. These schemes do not happen overnight—they take planning. It is right that we try to
	take local communities along with us wherever we can and gather support for sensible proposals, so that we are not rushing forward and turning the tap on and off, but ensuring that people can see that this forms part of an overall strategy.

David Nuttall: The improvement of the M60 will of course be very warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially those who regularly have to commute around Manchester, but for the next two years things are going to get worse—probably much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that, as far as possible, the works will be completed on time, and that while they are ongoing every effort will be made to keep disruption to a minimum?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about junction 8 of the M60, as well as junctions 20, 10 to 12, 24 to 27 and 1 to 4 of the M62. I appreciate and accept that while these works go on, that does bring disruption. First and foremost, I ask the Highways Agency to try to be as communicative with travelling passengers and motorists as possible so that they know where the troubles are going to be. It is very difficult to undertake upgrade works and not cause some disruption. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk to the chief executive of the Highways Agency to see whether we can do as much as possible on this concern for the travelling public.

Laurence Robertson: As the Secretary of State said, he was kind enough to visit the A417-A419 connection—the so-called missing link—where he saw the congestion for himself. He is aware of the death rate and the terrible accident rate on that road. Will he therefore be clear on whether this roads programme includes an allocation of money to sort that problem out?

Patrick McLoughlin: As my hon. Friend rightly says, I visited, with him and other Members, the connection of the two dual carriageway sections on the A417 in Gloucestershire. I have announced today that this will be developed for the next road investment strategy, because the scheme is not easy or straightforward and will be very complicated to carry out. However, we will start to look at the options in the next road investment strategy period.

Mark Menzies: I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement of £40 million-plus for the new section of the A585 that runs through my constituency. This has been talked about for over 20 years, and now it is finally being delivered. May I congratulate him on taking this very important decision?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This work will definitely reduce the impact of traffic on two villages and remove a major bottleneck from the main road to Fleetwood. He has been a strong applicant for investment in his area, and I hope that this will help the investment drive that he has led.

Andrew George: The Chiverton to Carland Cross A30 section is a notorious bottleneck, and the investment announced today is very welcome. What it may do, however, is shift the bottleneck further along the A30 between Rose-an-Grouse and Long Rock, and a scheme for that was scrapped nearly 20 years ago. Would my right hon. Friend recommend that the local
	authority bring forward that scheme again? Clearly, the investment is needed across the whole stretch of the A30.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sure Cornwall council will want to look at the implications of the announcements that I have made today. It has often produced imaginative schemes on which we have been able to work with it. If the council feels that the plans will lead to further problems, of course I would want to work with the council to try to alleviate them.

Andrew Tyrie: The statement will be warmly welcomed right across west Sussex, where it will improve east-west traffic flows. What matters most to many of my constituents, though, is getting to work across the A27, the north-south route, particularly from the Manhood peninsula. This will become even more difficult with all the extra housing that the area is expected to absorb. What assurance can the Minister give that this scheme’s implementation will bring sharp and sustained improvements in travel to work times for those constituents who desperately need that?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hope the improvements that we have set out will bring improvement to the journey times of the people mentioned by my hon. Friend, but if he has specific problems in relation to his constituency or a specific route in his constituency, I would like to look at that, along with the highway authority in his area.

Stephen McPartland: For over 30 years my constituents have been stuck in huge traffic jams on the two lanes between junctions 6 and 8 of the A1(M) at Stevenage. Today the Secretary of State announced a smart motorway scheme to introduce three lanes by using the hard shoulder. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the campaign from the local Members of Parliament. Does he realise what a massive boost this will give to Hertfordshire’s economy?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The operation of smart motorways and smart roads is encouraging. We are seeing roll-out. It is not a completely cost-free option. It is quite an expensive option, costing around £8 million a mile, but it leads to significant improvements.

Maria Miller: More than 900 new businesses have been created around Basingstoke in the past 12 months, so my constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s investment in the M3 that will help to tackle some of the problems, which were ignored by the previous Government. Smart motorway technology will make M3 journey times more reliable, and resurfacing will make the M3 safer. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that those sections of the M3 that have not been resurfaced in the past 10 years and are most affected by M3 motorway noise, such as those in Basingstoke, are a priority for his £6 billion plan to put low noise resurfacing on 80% of the strategic road network, as he set out?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hope that over the next period of the road investment strategy, we will manage to resurface some 80% of the strategic highway. I know that my
	right hon. Friend has campaigned for resurfacing in part of her constituency, as I admit I have done for part of my constituency, so I will look particularly at the schemes to which she refers.

John Stevenson: I am delighted with the announcement of a feasibility study for the dualling of the A69, which is long overdue, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see some of the issues there. Does he agree that connectivity between the east and the west of this country is often poor, and that dualling such roads as the A69 will help enormously, as well as boosting the economies of Cumbria and the north-east?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited his constituency and he showed me at first hand some of the pinch points around it. I hope we can work with him on dualling and alleviating pinch points in his constituency so that he can get the opportunities and the traffic easing that he rightly asks for.

Robert Jenrick: The Secretary of State visited my constituency three times in May, and from May to December what a difference he has made for the people of Newark and Nottinghamshire—a new southern link road, more services on the east coast main line, a doubling of services on the castle line from Lincoln to Nottingham, and today a full design for the dualling of the A46 from Farndon up to the A1. That is a huge change for the people of Newark and across the east midlands. Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will keep up the pace and see that redualling delivered in Nottinghamshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not quite sure that I can keep up that pace. My hon. Friend may well have had his fair share of investment. He failed to say that the castle line he mentioned actually starts in Matlock.

Bob Russell: Today’s changes at the Thames crossing mean a bigger rip-off for drivers. Will the Secretary of State say whether the 84 new schemes in the road investment strategy include the A120 east and west of Colchester and the A12 around Colchester?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the tolling on the Dartford crossing, because if people pre-register and sign up to the system, the figure they actually pay comes down. On the other roads he mentioned, the schemes are very clearly set out in the road investment strategy, as I have said, but if a part is missing I am sure that he will let me know.

Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment on the M42 means that we are serious about rebalancing the economy and further helping Birmingham International airport to bring more flights and more jobs to our region?

Patrick McLoughlin: The announcements for the midlands, which is a very important part of the country as far as infrastructure is concerned, involve 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. As I have said, in bringing forward the road
	investment strategy, we have looked at the whole of England and tried to be as fair as possible in announcing road investment across the whole country.

Tim Loughton: May I tell my right hon. Friend that there will be dancing in the streets of Lancing, Sompting and Worthing this evening, not least amid the static traffic on the A27 itself? For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the option of full dualling through Worthing, the largest town in Sussex, is very much on the table as part of his announcement?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not encourage anybody to dance on the roads. On the point about dualling the area mentioned by my hon. Friend, that is certainly on the table. It is for local people to show their enthusiasm for such a scheme, so that we can move it forward.

Robin Walker: May I thank the Secretary of State for and congratulate him on the very welcome and desperately needed investment in capacity at junction 6 of the M5, which will unlock growth in local businesses in Worcester? However, after a decade of lost investment in local roads, we desperately need more investment in the southern link, particularly at the Carrington bridge on the A440.

Patrick McLoughlin: I take my hon. Friend’s first point about the M5. I will need a bit more notice about his other point, but no doubt he will write to me.

Andrew Bingham: I am sure that the Secretary of State had a very happy birthday yesterday, but my constituents in Glossop will have a very happy day today following the announcement about the trunk road on the A57, the Glossop spur. They will also be delighted to hear that there will be a consultation on extending it beyond Tintwistle. Will he listen on that point, as he has listened to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and me, about bringing much-needed relief to my constituents who live and work in and around Glossop?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that my hon. Friend has worked very closely with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on this matter. We have deliberately said that we want to put the route around Tintwistle and Mottram out for consultation, because that is something which I am more than prepared to listen on and evaluate properly.

Stuart Andrew: Anyone who has driven across the Pennines will know what a horrible journey it can be, with bottlenecks right across the M62, and that inevitably affects economic activity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures on that route and on the M621 at Leeds will help us to make the northern economic powerhouse a reality?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this whole programme, we have tried to be fair to the whole country. However, I have been very mindful of connections between the east and the west of our country, particularly in the areas referred to by my hon. Friend—up
	and around Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield—and I hope that, in the document, we have addressed some of the most contentious hot spots.

Christopher Pincher: I heartily welcome the investment in the M42, which will be good for commuters in my constituency and make Tamworth an even better place to live, work and bring up a family. Will my right hon. Friend have it in mind that after years of failure to invest in the centre of the town, there is still a need for road improvements, so that we can continue to build all the houses that we need on brownfield sites and not greenfield ones?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he has made representations to Philip Atkins, the leader of Staffordshire county council, because those are local highway authority roads. I will join him in making those strong representations. I agree with him that Tamworth is an excellent place to invest.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for visiting the missing link on the A417. He therefore knows what an important economic link it is from the M4 to the M5. Will he put a bit more flesh on the bones than he did in his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)? Is it his intention to solve this problem? We have had feasibility studies for years. When does he expect work to start?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure that I can add much to the last two answers I gave on that point. There is a desire to find a solution, but it is not the easiest area to deal with. I have made a commitment to start work on it during the RIS programme so that a solution can be found in the longer term to this serious bottleneck.

Andrew Jones: I warmly welcome the statement and, in particular, the planned works on the M62 and the first increase in trans-Pennine capacity since 1971. Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving the connectivity between our great northern cities will provide a significant boost to the economy of the north?

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a keen interest in doing that. That is why we have money not only for the road investment strategy, but for rail improvement over the coming years. Our work on the northern hub will go a substantial way to addressing that area of concern. I also announced extra services last week under the new franchise on the east coast main line.

Steve Brine: My constituents in Winchester will feel very listened to today. I have badgered my right hon. Friend about junction 9 of the M3 for many years, so he knows the importance of today’s comprehensive package of improvements for my area. It is a huge issue for us locally, because whenever there is a problem on the motorway, it backs up right into Winchester and especially into Winnall. It is a huge issue for the country as well, because it is a major freight route from the midlands to the south, including to the ports in the south.

Patrick McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. He showed me some of the transport problems in his constituency. He has been a leading advocate of the case for better road infrastructure. I hope that we have gone some way towards showing how that will be achieved.

Marcus Jones: Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and my recent Adjournment debate about the A5 between the M42 and the M69, will my right hon. Friend consider the request for an in-depth feasibility study to search for a long-term solution to what is one of the most congested sections on the strategic road network?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend raised that issue in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago. It was framed as a debate about congestion problems in the midlands, but I know that they affect his constituency specifically. He has often made the case for improvements to road infrastructure. I hope that some of the announcements that I have made today will lead to some improvements, but we will no doubt have to go further.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I, too, welcome the £41 million for the improvement of the bottlenecks on the A585 into and out of Fleetwood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that builds on his announcement last year of £5 million for Lancashire county council to fill in potholes and the £111 million that was announced in 2011 to complete the M6-Heysham link road around Lancaster? Does he agree that in my part of Lancashire, we are finally beginning to make up for the 13 years of neglect by the previous Government?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right about levels of investment, not only in his constituency but elsewhere in that area. That is a marked change in the way transport infrastructure is addressed by the Government, and I hope that that continues whichever Government are in office—it certainly will under this Government.

Jason McCartney: The managed motorway scheme from Huddersfield to Leeds was completed on time and under budget, and I hope that the scheme announced from Huddersfield to Manchester will be completed with as little disruption to my commuting constituents as possible. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department and the Highways Agency continue to work with me on a possible new west bound exit off the M62 at Outlane in Huddersfield, which would ease pressure further up the motorway at Ainley Top?

Patrick McLoughlin: Of course I will work with my hon. Friend. He referred to one part of the managed motorway scheme that was delivered on time and on budget. Another part is about to start, which I hope is delivered on time and on budget, with as little disruption as possible. As a member of the Transport Committee, the way my hon. Friend has addressed the importance of transport infrastructure shows that he understands what is needed in his area for the economy to prosper.

Henry Smith: I join right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex in welcoming today’s announcement about £350 million to upgrade the A27. That will enhance the whole county economy and reverse
	the cancellation of some of the plans by the previous Labour Government. I thank the Secretary of State for upgrades that have already been delivered to the A23. Will he consider resurfacing parts of the M23 to reduce the impact of noise on constituents in neighbourhoods in Crawley that border that part of the motorway?

Patrick McLoughlin: A sizeable amount of money has been made available in the next road investment programme for resurfacing roads—it has been estimated that we will be able to resurface something like 80%—and I will obviously look at my hon. Friend’s representations.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Guy Opperman: rose—

Mr Speaker: What a stunning choice. I call Andrew Bridgen.

Andrew Bridgen: I feel as if I have been at the back of a long traffic jam to comment on this issue. After decades of promises and work authorised by this Government, the dualling of the A453 will soon be completed, linking my constituency with Nottingham and the east. Since a third of jobs in my constituency are distribution related, my constituents will welcome all today’s announcements about road infrastructure investment. Is my right hon. Friend as incredulous as I am that the shadow Transport Secretary should claim that the motorist has been let down, when Labour represents the party of the fuel duty escalator and the self-confessed failed transport policies of Lord Prescott?

Patrick McLoughlin: On the A453 I congratulate Councillor Kay Cutts, who was leader of Nottinghamshire county council and did a fantastic job in making the case for that road. The improvements that will be made to junction 24 on the M1 will be important, and that will serve my hon. Friend’s constituency directly. He is right to say that the Government are putting the motorist centre stage. These road improvements are necessary, and I hope that they receive cross-party consensus. This plan will be delivered under a Conservative Government; I do not think the same can be said for a Labour Government.

Guy Opperman: I may be at the end of the road when being called at questions, but the triumphant campaign to dual the A69, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), and the feasibility study announced by the Secretary of State, are most welcome. Is the Secretary of State interested to note that although Conservative Members welcome the announcement about dualling the A1, the Leader of the Opposition was in Newcastle on Friday and made it clear that Labour does not intend to do that?

Patrick McLoughlin: I was not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, but if my hon. Friend continues to make his case, more people will get to know about it. I think the road investment programme is essential. It is a balanced programme between road, rail, and the importance of public transport, as well as ensuring that motorists get their opportunity. That is right and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments.

NHS (Five Year Forward View)

Jeremy Hunt: I wish today to make a statement on the future of our NHS, one that I hope everyone in this House will welcome. In October, NHS England and its partner organisations published an ambitious “Five Year Forward View” that was welcomed across the political divide. Today, I will announce how the Government plan to implement that vision.
	Our response has four pillars. The first pillar is to ensure that we have an economy that can pay for the growing costs of our NHS and social care system: a strong NHS needs a strong economy. Some have suggested that the way to fund extra cost pressures is through new taxes, including on people’s homes. However, through prudent economic policies the Government can today announce additional NHS funding in the autumn statement without the need for a tax on homes. The funding includes £1.7 billion to support and modernise the delivery of front-line care, and £1 billion of funding over four years for investment in new primary care infrastructure. That is all possible because under this Government we have become the fastest growing economy in the G7.
	The NHS itself can contribute to that strong economy in a number of ways. It is helping people with mental health conditions to get back to work by offering talking therapies to 100,000 more people every year than four years ago. The NHS can also attract jobs to the UK by playing a pivotal role in our life sciences industry. We have already attracted £3.5 billion of investment and 11,000 jobs in the past three years, as well as announcing plans to be the first country in the world to decode 100,000 research-ready whole genomes. Today, I want to go further by announcing that we are establishing the Genomics England clinical interpretation partnership to bring together external researchers with NHS clinical teams to interpret genomic information so that we go further and faster in developing diagnostics, treatments and therapies for rarer diseases and cancers. Too often, people with such diseases have suffered horribly because it is not economic to invest in finding treatments. We want the UK to lead the world in using genetic sequencing to unlock cures that have previously been beyond our reach.
	The second pillar of our plan is to change the models of care to be more suited for an ageing population, where growing numbers of vulnerable older people need support to live better at home with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and arthritis. To do that, we need to focus on prevention as much as cure, helping people to stay healthy without allowing illnesses to deteriorate to the point where they need expensive hospital treatment. Some have argued that to do that we need to make clinical commissioning groups part of local government and force GPs to work for hospital groups, but because that would amount to a top-down reorganisation we reject that approach. We have listened to people in the NHS who say that more than anything the NHS wants structural stability going forward, and, even if others do not, we will heed that message.
	We have already made good progress in improving out-of-hospital care. This year, all those aged 75 and over have been given a named GP responsible for their
	care, something that was abolished by the previous Government. From next year, not just over-75s but everyone will have named GPs. Some 3.5 million people already benefit from our introduction of evening and weekend GP appointments, which will progressively become available to the whole population by 2020. The better care fund is merging the health and social care systems to provide joined-up care for our most vulnerable patients. Alongside that, the Government have legislated, for the first time ever, on parity of esteem between physical and mental health. To deliver world class community care, we need much better physical infrastructure. Today, I can announce a £1 billion investment fund in primary and community care facilities over the next four years. This will pay for new surgeries and community care facilities in the places where people most want them: near their own homes and families. These new primary care facilities will also be encouraged to join up closely with local job centres, social services and other community services.
	Additionally, from the £1.7 billion revenue funding we are also announcing, we will make £200 million available to pilot the new models of care set out in the “Forward View”. To deliver these new models, we will need to support the new clinical commissioning groups in taking responsibility, with partners, for the entire health and care needs of their local populations. So as well as commissioning secondary care, from next year they will be given the opportunity to co-commission primary care, specialist care, social care, through the better care fund, and for the first time, if local areas want to do it, public health. The NHS will therefore take the first steps towards true population health commissioning, with care provided by accountable care organisations.
	A strong economy and a focus on prevention are the first two pillars of our plan. The third pillar is to be much better at embracing innovation and eliminating waste. We are making good progress in our ambition for the NHS to be paperless by 2018, and last month the number of A and E departments and ambulance services able to access summary GP records exceeded a third for the first time, while from next spring, everyone will be able to access their own GP record online. However, today, I want to go further: £1.5 billion of the extra £1.7 billion revenue funding will go on additional front-line activity. To access this funding, we will ask hospitals to provide assured plans showing how they will be more efficient and sustainable in the year ahead and deliver their commitment to a paperless NHS by 2018.
	We also have to face the reality that the NHS has often been too slow to adopt and spread innovation. Sometimes this is because the people buying health care have not had the information to see how much smart purchasing can contain costs, so from next year CCGs will be asked to collect improved financial information, including per-patient costings.
	The best way to encourage investment in innovation is a stable financial environment, so I can today announce that the Government, in collaboration with NHS England, will give local authorities and CCGs indicative, multi-year budgets as soon as possible after the next spending review. We expect NHS England and Monitor to follow this by modernising the tariff to set multi-year prices and make the development of year-of-care funding packages easier.
	The NHS also needs to be better at controlling costs in areas such as procurement, agency staff, the collection of fees from international visitors and reducing litigation and other costs associated with poor care. I have announced plans in all these areas, and we will agree the precise level of savings to be achieved through consultation with NHS partner organisations over the next six months. This will lead to a compact signed up to by the Department, its arm’s length bodies and local NHS organisations, with agreed plans to eliminate waste and allow more resources to be directed to patient care.
	The final pillar of our plan is the most important and difficult of all. We can find the money; we can support new models of care; we can embrace innovation, but if we get the culture wrong, if we fail to nurture dignity, respect and compassionate care for every single NHS patient, we are betraying the values that underpin the work done every day by doctors and nurses throughout the NHS. We have made good progress since the Francis report: a new Care Quality Commission regime, six hospitals turned around after being put into special measures, 5,000 more nurses on our wards, the My NHS website and 4.2 million NHS patients asked for the first time if they would recommend to others the care they received.
	In the next few months, however, we will go further, announcing new measures to improve training and safety for new doctors and nurses, launching a national campaign to reduce sepsis and responding to recommendations made in the follow-up Francis report, tackling issues of whistleblowing and the ability to speak out easily about poor care.
	Under this Government, the NHS has, according to the independent Commonwealth Fund, become the top-ranked health care system in the world. In 2010, we are seventh for patient-centred care, and we have now moved to the top. Under this Government, we have also become the safest health care system in the world. But with an ageing population, we face huge challenges.
	How we prepare the NHS and social care system to meet those challenges will be the litmus test of this Government’s ambition to make Britain the best country in the world in which to grow old. We are determined to pass that test, and today’s four-pillar plan will help us to do just that. Our plan will need proper funding, backed by a strong economy, so I welcome yesterday’s comment by Simon Stevens that when it comes to money, the Government have played their part.
	However, we also need ambitious reforms to the way we deliver care, focusing on prevention, innovation and a patient-centred culture that treats every single person with dignity and respect—proper reforms not as a substitute for proper funding, but as a condition of it. A long-term plan for the economy; a long-term plan for the NHS—I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: This weekend a 16-year-old girl in need of a hospital bed was held for two days in a police cell because there was not a single bed available for her anywhere in the country. As we have warned before, this is by no means an isolated example: the BBC reported on Friday that seven other people had died recently waiting for mental health beds. But it is not just mental health. Last week I told the House of a
	stroke patient ferried to hospital by police on a makeshift stretcher made from blinds in his house. That patient later died. This is one of a number of alarming reports of people waiting hours in pain and distress for ambulances to arrive.
	To listen to the Secretary of State, for over 10 minutes today, one would have no idea that any of that was happening in the NHS right now—and that is the problem: nothing he has said today will address those pressures ahead of this winter. On mental health, does he not accept that there is an undeniable need to open more beds urgently —right now, this week—to stop appalling cases like the one we heard about at the weekend? What assessment has he made of the ability of the ambulance service to cope this winter? Is there a case for emergency support, on top of what has already been announced?
	This statement offers no help now to an NHS on the brink of its worst winter in years, but there is another major problem with it. The weekend headlines promised £2 billion extra for the NHS, but the small print revealed that it is nothing of the sort. I note that the Secretary of State did not use the figure of £2 billion once in his statement, but that is what the NHS was led to believe it was getting. False promises and cheques that bounce one day after they are written are of no use to doctors and nurses struggling to keep services going. We all remember the omnishambles Budget unravelling the day after it was given, but an autumn statement unravelling three days before it has been delivered is a first even for this Government.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that £700 million of the £1.7 billion he talked about is not new money, but already in his departmental budget? A few weeks ago his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it expects to overspend this year by half a billion pounds. His Department is in deficit right now. If that is the case, would he care to tell us where this £700 million is coming from and what services he will be cutting to pay for it? He mentioned research. At the weekend we exposed NHS England’s plans to cut the funding for clinical trials, which would have affected thousands of very poorly patients. Was that one of his planned central cuts to pay for this funding? Will he now guarantee that funding for research and clinical trials will not be cut?
	But it gets worse. Not only is £700 million recycled; we gather that the other £1 billion will be funded by cuts to other Departments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of “staggeringly big cuts” to local government in the next Parliament. The NHS Confederation has said:
	“If additional NHS funding comes at the expense of tough cuts to local government budgets, this will be a false economy as costs in the NHS will rise.”
	Have the Government not learnt the lessons of this Parliament: that the NHS cannot be seen in isolation from other services, particularly local government, and that cutting social care only leads to extra costs for the NHS? Figures released on Friday revealed record numbers of older people trapped in hospital because the care was not there for them at home. That is happening on the Secretary of State’s watch.
	This is the human consequence of the severe cuts to social care in this Parliament, and it is clear that this Government are preparing to do the same again in the next Parliament if they are re-elected. This is why hospital A and Es have missed the right hon. Gentleman’s own
	target for 71 weeks running. We also have cancer patients waiting longer for treatment to start, and everyone is finding it harder and harder to see a GP.
	Is it not the case that most of what the Secretary of State has announced will go to patching up the problems he has created, leaving less than a quarter for the new models of care outlined in the “Forward View”? Let me remind him that policies such as a year of care for vulnerable patients and having accountable care organisations were developed by the Opposition, and for him to stand there today and lecture us about reorganisations of the NHS—well, I did not think that even he would have the nerve to do that.
	The truth is that what the Secretary of State has announced provides nothing for the NHS now and is not what it seems, and because of that it will not be enough to prevent the NHS from tipping into full-blown crisis if the Tories are re-elected next year. They will not be able to find any more money for the NHS than this, because they have prioritised tax cuts for higher earners and have not yet found the money to pay for them. That explains their desperate attempts to inflate these figures and make them sound more than they are. Is it not the case that to deliver the “Five Year Forward View”, the NHS needs truly additional money on the scale proposed by Labour—an extra £2.5 billion over and above everything the Secretary of State has promised today, and an ambitious plan for the full integration of health and social care.
	They said they would be the Government who cut the deficit, not the NHS, but it is the Health Secretary who has created a deficit in the NHS. It is because of that deficit that cancer patients are waiting longer, A and E is in crisis and children are being held in police cells, not hospital beds. He had nothing to say to those people today. They deserve better than a Chancellor fiddling the figures and a Health Secretary spinning the facts.

Jeremy Hunt: This is the day on which Labour’s attacks on the NHS have been shown up for what they are—every bit as shallow as their attacks on the economy. The country knows that we are addressing the squeeze on NHS funding caused by Labour’s wrecking of the British economy.
	The right hon. Gentleman called today’s announcement “patching up the problems”. If growing the economy so that we can put more money into the NHS is patching up problems, how would he describe shrinking the economy and then cutting the NHS budget, as he wanted to do? He said that £2 billion of new money was a false promise. It was not a false promise: it was the truth—£1 billion of additional funding from the Treasury and £1 billion from the forex fines. That is £2 billion of new money, which has been welcomed by the King’s Fund today as a big step forward, and by the NHS Confederation, the Foundation Trust Network and Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England and former Labour No. 10 health adviser. This is a very significant moment when, after years of taking painful decisions to get the economy back on track, we can at last put more money into the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome it, not scorn it.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about deficits in the NHS. We will take no lessons on deficits from the Labour party—the party that left the country its biggest
	level of unfunded spending commitments in peacetime history. The truth is that now, with a strong economy that Labour could never deliver, we are putting things right.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about problems with care in the NHS, and the one thing that no one ever says about me is that I am a Health Secretary who shies away from those problems. The trouble is that every time I talk about problems with care in the NHS, he says it is running down the NHS. It is not running down the NHS to confront the problems of poor care. He also talked about the issue of police cells, but we are on track to reduce the number of mental health patients using them by 50% over the next few months.
	As for pressures on the NHS front line, it is not that all Health Secretaries do not have to confront them; it is whether or not we sort them out. When it comes to poor care in hospitals such as the Medway and hospitals in Colchester, Basildon and Burton, this Government are sorting out those problems, while the previous Government swept them under the carpet. The right hon. Gentleman used the word “spin”, but he might like to reflect on the massive harm done to patients when under a Labour Government poor care was covered up by Labour spin—surely it was Labour’s darkest period ever when it came to running the NHS.
	Government Members have a long-term plan for the economy, and a long-term plan for the NHS. In contrast—[Interruption.] Opposition Members might listen to the truth about the NHS. In contrast, the Labour leader said recently that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS. He wanted to turn the NHS into a weapon—a weapon to get Labour votes. No, Mr Speaker, the NHS is not a weapon for political parties. It is there to help patients and to save lives, not to save political spins. Under this Government, it will always be there for patients: that is what this Government will deliver.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. For the avoidance of doubt—because there was some consternation about this matter—let me say that I am sure the Secretary of State is not making an allegation of any personal dishonesty on the part of any Member. It would simply not be legitimate to do so.

Jeremy Hunt: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State confirms that he is not making any allegation of personal dishonesty against any individual. Enough: we are grateful. We will leave it there for now.

Sarah Wollaston: I warmly welcome the statement. The extra funds for the NHS constitute a clear endorsement of Simon Stevens’s excellent “Five Year Forward View”. I particularly welcome the announcement of multi-year budgets and investment in patients’ ability to control their own records. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the process of creating paperless NHS hospitals will move seamlessly from primary to secondary care, and will be controlled by patients themselves?

Jeremy Hunt: The commitment to a paperless NHS is not a commitment to the creation of paperless hospitals by 2018; it is a commitment to the creation of a paperless NHS so that, with patients’ consent, information can
	flow seamlessly between different parts of the system. The interface between primary care and secondary care, and social care, is a very important part of that process.

Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money is now being diverted from patient care to the negotiation of legally binding contracts between commissioners and suppliers of services, or will he confirm that he cannot do so because he does not bother to collect the information?

Jeremy Hunt: What I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman is that the rules on the contracting out of services are the rules that we inherited from the Labour Government, although he personally might not have introduced them had he remained Health Secretary throughout those 13 years.

Adrian Sanders: May I focus for a moment on a constituency case? Last Thursday, a 16-year-old was placed in the custody centre at Torquay police station. What is of concern is that there is nothing new about that. In Devon and Cornwall alone, there have been 700 cases of people with mental health problems being placed in police cells. The problem for this young woman was that, at that point, not a single facility could be found anywhere in England to meet her needs. It really is outrageous that that could happen to a 16-year-old girl in this day and age. Where does the statement mention the fourth-tier funding to provide facilities that are clearly needed, and have been needed for years?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is totally unacceptable for someone with severe mental health problems to be placed in a police cell. We are making very good progress in reducing the use of police cells for that purpose, with the active support of the care services Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). In the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, a bed was available but there was poor communication on the ground, which is why we were not able to solve the problem as quickly as we would have liked. As soon as NHS England was informed of the problem, it was able to find a bed within, I think, about three hours. However, as he says, this is a problem that we must eliminate.

Glenda Jackson: If that amount of new money is indeed going into the NHS, will the Secretary of State tell us how much of it will be dedicated to—perhaps even exclusively used for—better delivery of mental health services, not least services for child and adolescent mental health patients?
	Let me point out to the Secretary of State that this is not the first occasion on which the House has raised with the Government the total failure to provide adequate services for people with mental health issues. The matter was most recently highlighted at the weekend, but it has been highlighted in the Chamber more than once in the recent past. What the Secretary of State has said today certainly does not calm my fear that if my constituents need a mental health bed, they will not find one in London, and heaven only knows how many hundreds of miles they may have to travel before they do find that security.

Jeremy Hunt: I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady, because today’s announcement includes £1.5 billion extra for the NHS front line next year. That will include mental health services, and we would expect commissioners to observe parity of esteem as they decide how to allocate those additional resources. It also includes £1 billion to improve primary care facilities, which will be used by many mental health patients. There is a lot in today’s announcement that I hope will relieve pressure. She is right to say that we need to do better on child and adolescent mental health services. This has been a long-standing problem, but we have been taking forward some important work to make a reality of our commitment to parity of esteem, which is something we are very proud to have legislated for.

Nicholas Soames: May I report to my right hon. Friend that, despite the dismal rant he heard from the shadow Secretary of State, the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath and the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton, and their doctors and nurses, are doing a magnificent job in treating local people? Will he also accept that the problem with mental health services in this country goes back a long way? It will not be fixed overnight. I have had the same problem in my constituency of someone being put in a police cell. The problem fell entirely on the staff of the local trust, who simply did not deal with the matter properly. This is going to take a long time to fix, and I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment, because the use of police cells is not an issue with which we should be playing party political games. As it happens, their use was much higher under the last Labour Government. We are starting to address that issue, and he is right: even one person spending a night inappropriately in a police cell is one person too many. That is why we are making good progress, but in the end it will require people who purchase health care in local areas to look at people with mental health needs in a holistic way—not just trying to solve issues problem by problem, but looking at and addressing the whole problem and making sure they get the treatment they need.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State should not be at all surprised by this terrible case of the young girl kept in a police cell in Devon over the weekend, because I and other Members have been raising this personally with him for at least the last three years. What has he been doing over that period to address the scandal of young people’s mental health services in Devon and nationally?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have been doing: I have been putting in place a strategy that will see over the next few months a reduction of 51% in the number of mental health patients who use police cells. That is progress. It still means that there are too many people in police cells, but I would just gently urge him not to try to make party political capital out of this, because a higher number of them were used under the last Labour Government. We are addressing a long-standing problem in a responsible way, and are determined to go further.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome every word of my right hon. Friend’s statement, not least because his fourth pillar on culture change echoes the work done by the Public Administration Committee on complaints handling and the need for openness. His statement addresses all the needs and challenges we face in north-east Essex: the problems of openness and transparency in the local hospital and the need to transfer more of what the hospital does back to the community providers—to the multidisciplinary providers that need to be in the community. I welcome the £1 billion fund for developing community facilities, but how is he going to persuade the CCGs to transfer some of their commissioning power to these units? A hospital in Harwich, which was built under the last Labour Government, has two operating theatres that have never been used because the CCG, and its predecessor the primary care trust, would not commission services through those facilities.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing support for the importance of transparency in driving up standards in health care. He has championed that for his own hospital, which has had particular issues on that front, but also through his role in this House, and he is absolutely right to do so. On his substantive point, we will get CCGs to do what he suggests through the reforms that I have announced, which will encourage them to take a holistic view of the health care received by the patients for whom they are responsible. In particular, we have got to move away from commissioning care piecemeal—commissioning a certain number of hips or a certain number of mental health consultations—and to start looking at patients and all their needs in the round. If we commission in that way, we can avoid a number of the human tragedies that have come to light.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State kindly confirm that the Chancellor will include in his autumn statement on Wednesday an obligation on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that if, as we expect, further funding for health is devolved to Northern Ireland, it is ring-fenced so that it is spent exclusively on health? In that way, GP beds in community hospitals such as mine in Bangor—in North Down, not north Wales—can be reopened. Those beds were closed today, 1 December, causing enormous trauma and distress to the patients and staff there.

Jeremy Hunt: The system involves Barnett consequentials. As a result of today’s announcement, extra money will go to the devolved Administrations and we hope that they will use it for health purposes, but they do have a choice. The hon. Lady has just made the case extremely elegantly for that money to be put into health. She mentioned north Wales, and I know that Members on this side of the House will be hoping that the Welsh Government will also use the extra money for the NHS, given the profound problems in the Welsh NHS.

Richard Fuller: Dementia care for our parents, grandparents and loved ones is a growing issue for my constituents, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting dementia care at the centre of what he is trying to do. I also congratulate the Bedfordshire clinical commissioning group on its recent review. Will he tell us what today’s announcement will do to help to support those parts of the country that are trying to make progress on dementia care?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so. We have made good progress during this Parliament, increasing by 10% the proportion of people with dementia who receive a diagnosis. This is not just about getting a diagnosis, however; it is the care and support that people get when the diagnosis is made that really matter. That is the reason for giving the diagnosis. Let me characterise the change that we want to see for people with dementia over the next few years. When someone gets a diagnosis, we want to wrap around them all the care and support that they and their family need to help them to live healthily and happily at home for as long as possible, so that they do not get admitted to hospital in an emergency or need to go into residential care until the very last moment. Of course that will cost the NHS less, but it is also far better for the individual concerned.

Kevan Jones: The Secretary of State talks about party politics, but he cannot get away from the fact that the number of mental health beds in this country has dropped by 1,500 on his watch. We have heard about the scandal in Devon last week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has told the House how some patients have to travel up to 200 miles to access an emergency bed. What is the Secretary of State going to do to deliver those beds where the mental health patients who are in crisis actually need them, which is close to their homes?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to address the issue of availability of mental health beds for crisis care, but we also need to recognise that the model of care for people with mental health needs is changing. We think that it is much better to avoid long-term institutionalisation if we possibly can, and that is why there has been a process of reduction in the number of beds. That happened under the Labour Government as well. If he wants to know what I am doing, I will tell him. I am part of the Government who are delivering a strong economy, which means we can put more money into the NHS.

Mark Hoban: I commend my right hon. Friend for securing £1 billion from the Chancellor to modernise primary care services. I know that the GPs in my constituency will welcome that, because they often cannot provide additional services due to capacity constraints. May I urge him to ensure that, when money is spent from the fund, it is linked to delivery in relation to the proposals set out by Simon Stevens for improving primary care, for better provision locally and for closer integration with hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This will help to improve primary care premises and facilities. I know that there is an urgent need to upgrade a number of GP surgeries and primary care facilities, but this is not essentially about buildings. It is about new models of care. The single big change that we need to see over the next five years is in the role of GPs, so that they have the capacity and the desire to take proactive responsibility, particularly for the most vulnerable people on their lists, including people with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and asthma. To do that, they will need better facilities—bigger facilities—and the ability to carry out more diagnostic tests in their surgeries, and I think that this funding will make a big difference.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Secretary of State confirm a report in The Guardiantoday that he shelved the downgrading of the majority of accident and emergency departments in England under the Keogh review because that is “political suicide” and because of criticisms from the College of Emergency Medicine, the Care Quality Commission and chief executives of trusts? Will this mean that he can now suspend Shaping a Healthier Future and remove the threat to the Charing Cross and Ealing A and Es?

Jeremy Hunt: I am always happy to confirm that a Guardian story is wrong. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was no plan to downgrade the majority of A and Es. The plan is to invest in A and Es—to continue with broadly the same number of A and Es as we currently have but to recognise that some of them will need to specialise in different things. We will stick to that plan—it is a good one.

Paul Burstow: I very much welcome the statement and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s ambition that Britain should become the best place in the world to grow old in. Given that home care is an essential part of maintaining frail older people and enabling them to remain in their own homes, and given that well-paid, well-trained and well-motivated home care staff enable people to stay in their own homes and families to juggle work with caring responsibilities, will he direct some of the extra £2 billion to the better care fund, in order that it goes directly into social care so that these services can actually be provided?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend is making: home care is going to become an increasingly important part of what the NHS and social care systems deliver. I want them to deliver it in an integrated, joined-up way and £200 million of the £1.7 billion going on to the NHS front line is to help develop new models of care. I think that improved home care could be a very real way we do that.

Keith Vaz: The “Five Year Forward View” recommended a five-year programme to prevent type 2 diabetes that is evidence-based. How much of the money that the Secretary of State has announced today will be specifically about preventing diabetes, so that in the long run we will save even more money? At the moment, health and wellbeing boards are under no obligation to spend any part of their budget in a specific way on diabetes.

Jeremy Hunt: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his campaigning on diabetes. I have looked at this carefully as Health Secretary and I looked at the possibility of ring-fencing certain sums in the budget for conditions such as diabetes, but the advice I received was that the broader change we need to make is in the whole mentality across the NHS for dealing with all long-term conditions, not only diabetes, but arthritis, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That is because within a couple of years we will have 3 million people who have three or more long-term conditions, one of which is often diabetes. So will a real focus of the change we want to see in the NHS be on people with long-term
	conditions? Yes, I would say that that is the biggest focus of all in the change we want to see over the next five years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible on this extremely important set of issues, but may I appeal to colleagues to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance, whether they are speaking from the Back Bench or the Front Bench?

Sarah Newton: I welcome today’s announcement of the national sepsis prevention campaign, which will make a such a difference to people in Cornwall and all around the UK. Will my right hon. Friend continue to work with the all-party group and the UK Sepsis Trust to implement the sepsis six, which it is estimated will save 12,500 lives and £2 billion for the NHS every year?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I will. I have to say to the House that the importance of being better at tackling sepsis was brought home to me personally by two moving meetings with Scott Morrish, the father of Sam Morrish, who was from the west country—perhaps near my hon. Friend’s constituency. His son’s tragic death from sepsis was avoidable, so this is an absolute priority for me in the next couple of months.

Clive Efford: Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State could not muster enough Conservative MPs in this House to defend the Health and Social Care Act 2012, particularly those elements of it that have allowed competition regulators into the NHS to second-guess decisions of local commissioners. If he wants to save money in the NHS, he can do away with that element of the 2012 Act and stop money being diverted away from patients to pay for lawyers and accountants to oversee a tendering process that is wasting money.

Jeremy Hunt: If we stopped the NHS using the private sector, which seems to be Labour’s direction of travel, 330,000 people every year would have to wait longer to have their hips or knees replaced. We will make decisions on the basis of what is right for patients, and not of ideology.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his remarks and thank him for the extra £1 billion for primary care. In South Dorset, I hear many complaints about the agency fees for recruiting staff, which is one reason why trusts tend to recruit nurses from abroad—from places such as Spain. Will he look at that and see if there is some way we can save a bit of money and act a little more efficiently?

Jeremy Hunt: We are spending too much on agency staff. It is fair to acknowledge that one reason why NHS trusts are doing that is in reaction to the Francis report. They want to ensure that they have proper staffing on their wards and proper staffing quickly. We have introduced transparency to encourage them to do that. As things settle down, they need to transfer more of those staff on to proper permanent contracts, because it costs the NHS too much to pay those exorbitant agency fees.

Ann Coffey: I welcome any extra funding for the NHS, but will the Secretary of State ensure that it is fairly distributed, as on the current funding formula, Stockport is 4.9% from target, and that is affecting the ability of the clinical commissioning team to develop health services in the community as an alternative to emergency admissions to Stepping Hill hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the way funding is allocated, and it is a concern that is shared in all parts of the House. It has been very difficult to get that right in a period when NHS funding has not been going up by large amounts, but that matter is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers by NHS England. It will make its decisions at a board meeting on 17 December, and I will make sure that I relay to it her concerns.

Margot James: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all patients, especially older and vulnerable patients, deserve the security of an NHS funded out of general taxation rather than part-funded by an unpredictable and opportunistic tax on people’s homes as proposed by the Labour party?

Jeremy Hunt: The trouble with a mansion tax is that, in the end, it will apply not to mansions but to homes, flats and people on low incomes. That is why it is the wrong way to put more funding into the NHS. The right way to do it is to have a strong economy, and only this Government can deliver that.

Karl Turner: Up until her retirement, my mother was a very proud and committed nurse in the NHS. The Secretary of State wears a lapel badge pretending his love for the NHS. Today, my mother asked why, if the Secretary of State had £700 million in his Department, could he not have afforded the measly 1% pay rise for our committed nurses in the NHS, which would have cost £200 million.

Jeremy Hunt: It really demeans debate in this House to go on about some phoney argument that one side of the House cares about the NHS while the other does not. We have shown our commitment to the NHS by announcing today £2 billion of additional funding. That is a big deal and it shows our commitment. We have also given all nurses a 1% pay rise.

Andrew George: I welcome the additional money. My right hon. Friend is right that health providers need a stable financial environment, but many of them have been left with a debilitating legacy of debt. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust in my own area has a legacy of debt, which is just a fraction of the amount by which the Government have admitted that they have underfunded the local health economy over many years. Rather than having distorting activity going on in that trust, would it not be better for it to start with a clean sheet of paper and to build for the future rather than constantly having to work from a position of debt?

Jeremy Hunt: I sympathise, because the previous Labour Government left hospitals with more than £70 billion of PFI debts. Those debts must be paid off and that money cannot be spent on front-line patient care. We
	have done what we can on a case-by-case basis to help trusts deal with those debts. It is extremely difficult when resources are tight and of course I will consider the trust’s particular case.

Angus MacNeil: Any new money for health is, of course, welcome, but it has only come because of acute need in the English NHS. If there had been acute need in the Scottish NHS or further acute need in the Welsh NHS, we could whistle for it. Surely this is one reason for us to have full fiscal autonomy in Scotland so that we can control the spending and raising of money in Scotland rather than relying on mismanagement in England or on electoral advantage. What will be the consequences of this announcement for the Scottish NHS, the Welsh NHS and the Northern Irish NHS per annum?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy we devolve responsibility for the NHS to the devolved Administrations, because it means that people can compare performance and that we can learn from each other. For example, patients wait a shorter time for operations in England compared with in Scotland and Wales.

Tony Baldry: Giving clinical commissioning groups the opportunity to commission GP services as well as secondary care will provide an amazing opportunity for there to be whole-population commissioning. Does it not also provide an opportunity for health and wellbeing boards? It provides an opportunity for elected councillors to work with clinical commissioning groups to try to design health care services, both primary and secondary, for the whole of the local population.

Jeremy Hunt: It absolutely does. My right hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. This year, the better care fund—a programme derided by the Labour party, which said that it would not work—has been a huge success, with a £5 billion integration of the health and social care systems. The enthusiasm that unleashed encouraged me to propose today that we should go further, so that where both parties are willing, local authorities and the local NHS should consider jointly commissioning public health as well. There would be huge benefits if they chose to do that.

Nick Brown: Is it still the Government’s case that the emerging deficits across the English hospital trusts can be dealt with by efficiency savings alone?

Jeremy Hunt: There are huge pressures in the NHS. By the time of the election, we will have nearly 1 million more over-65s than there were at the last election. That means that people have to redouble their efforts to live within their means. At the same time people are trying to deliver the higher standards of care that we have talked about following the Francis review into what happened in Mid Staffs. It is challenging, but we expect all trusts to live within their budget. In all cases, they have recovery plans that we expect them to stick to.

Bob Russell: I pay tribute to the medical and support staff at Colchester hospital for their work to bring it out of special measures. Twice the Secretary of State referred to focusing on prevention.
	May I suggest that a contribution to that admirable aim would be for first aid to be included in the national curriculum for schools?

Jeremy Hunt: No one campaigns more for first aid than my hon. Friend. I would certainly encourage all schools to teach first aid, as I think it is a very important skill and we should consider that as part of the prevention agenda. There is also a broader point, which is that we can do a lot with the Department for Education on this agenda.

Derek Twigg: In my constituency, people are increasingly finding it difficult to access GPs and the local hospital, Warrington and Halton, is in deficit and is missing its A and E targets. I therefore have a simple question for Secretary of State. How many additional GPs will this money find over and above the number of GPs who are in post today?

Jeremy Hunt: It takes seven years to train a GP, so the long-term solution is to train an additional 5,000 GPs, which is what the Government have decided to do and have announced. While they come on stream, this additional money will fund up to 20,000 additional posts, a number of which will be in the community.

David Tredinnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his emphasis on prevention. Has he had a chance to read Public Health England’s report, “From evidence into action”? It encourages him to place greater emphasis on risk factors that contribute to an early death, such as tobacco, blood pressure, diet, inactivity and alcohol, rather than the actual conditions that people die from. That would cut demand for services.

Jeremy Hunt: That document is very powerful and I have said before that I hope that in our lifetimes this will become a smoke-free country. It is shocking that we still have 85,000 deaths every year linked to smoking. However, we are a free country so this is about supplying the information, incentives and nudges and not about compelling people.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that GPs in my constituency have, on average, 4,500 patients on their list, which is about twice the average for England. Earlier he told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that in constituencies such as hers and mine, where funding is so far from the target, we have to depend on NHS England, not him, to remedy the gap. How can we influence NHS England? What pressure is he putting on it to get fair funding for every area?

Jeremy Hunt: The reason we decided to give that decision to NHS England—it is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers—was to remove the worry people had that politicians might make these decisions for political purposes, rather than for what is right for the NHS. I encourage the hon. Lady to make representations to NHS England before its board meeting on 17 December.

Charlotte Leslie: I very much welcome the “Five Year Forward View” and the new investment, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is not so much a five-year forward view we need,
	but a 20 or 50-year forward view, if we are to begin to meet the tsunami of demand we face? We will have to work together across the House as we face the tough questions on how to fund and manage the NHS. Otherwise, we will be accused by future generations of bickering while our NHS burns.

Jeremy Hunt: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is also important to have a clear plan of action to take us in the right direction over the next six years, which is what the plan from NHS England and Simon Stevens provides and what the Government have said we support. She is right that the demographic trends will get worse. By 2030 the number of over-80s will have doubled to 5 million. That is the sobering reality that we all have to face up to.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware the some of us on the Opposition side feel a bit sorry for him? This is the third “pie in the sky” statement we have had recently—we had heard statements on rail, on roads and now on health—which basically say that things might get better in future, and of course the election is in five months. The fact of the matter is that when I go back to Huddersfield, I see a health service in which all the players, who used to work together in partnership for something they believed in, are now at each others’ throats, as a result of his reforms; not collaborating, but fighting, disagreeing and making bids against each other.

Jeremy Hunt: Let us take one example. The Better Care fund has meant that for the first time—this did not happen in 13 years under Labour—local authorities are sitting around a table with the local NHS, working out how to jointly commission care for the most vulnerable patients in the community. That is a huge step forward. The hon. Gentleman should talk with the people in his local authority, because he will hear about the incredible progress that is being made. This is not pie in the sky; it is £2 billion of new money for the NHS. That will make a big difference to doctors and nurses in Huddersfield, just as it will everywhere else.

John Stevenson: I welcome the announcement of additional funds for the NHS and give my support to the Minister for putting patients first and driving up the quality of care. However, does he agree that it is not all about money and that quality, committed and motivated staff are central to a successful NHS, as is good leadership and management, particularly at the local level?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For every hospital in difficulty—he has had many discussions with me about his hospital, which is going through a very difficult period—there is another with the same funding settlement that is able to deliver good care with motivated staff. Leadership is extremely important for motivating staff, and the one quality that staff say matters most to them is having leaders who listen to what they say and, when they have concerns, take them seriously. That is a change that we are beginning to see throughout the NHS.

David Anderson: On that subject, I can advise the Secretary of State that last week I spoke with nurses in the hospital near my constituency, and
	they told me that as a result of the cuts in their pay, which have been going on for many years, they are seriously considering setting up shoebox collections to help their members get through this Christmas. At the same time, the chief executive of that trust has had a 17% pay increase, and the governors have had an 88% increase in their allowances. Is that what he means by all being in this together?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid we will not take any lessons from the party that increased managers’ pay at double the rate of nurses’ pay when in office. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what this Government have done: because of our increases in the tax-free threshold, the lowest paid NHS workers have seen their take-home pay go up by £1,000 a year.

David Nuttall: Despite all the claims and counter-claims, does the Secretary of State agree that in the long term, with a taxpayer-funded NHS, Government will only ever be able to increase resources and meet the public’s expectations if UK plc is thriving and we have a growing economy?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party thought it would win this argument by pledging extra money for the NHS at its party conference, but that will not actually happen until the second half of the next Parliament and it may not happen at all if it has got its sums wrong. The public reaction was simply not to believe it, because they know that what Labour does to the economy actually puts all NHS funding at risk, which is something we must never allow to happen.

Mark Reckless: Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced a welcome £6.12 million grant for Medway, and on Tuesday he referred to the extra doctors and nurses being taken on in a special measures regime for Medway hospital. Could he assure us that extra and recurring funding will also be available to cover the costs in future?

Jeremy Hunt: The funding I have announced today—the £1.5 billion for front-line NHS services—is recurring, as is the additional Treasury funding of £1 billion. That is being added to the NHS baseline so that it can be invested in long-term increases in staff numbers, among other things.

Mark Spencer: What impact will the extra money have on hospitals in special measures, such as the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust? Could he assure the House that any extra moneys will reach clinicians and patients and will not be swamped by the disastrous private finance initiative that the previous Government signed?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course, that has been a huge problem for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I have met the chief executive, who is doing a very good job in turning around the trust, but there are huge challenges. What doctors and nurses in failing hospitals or hospitals in special measures want to know is that they have a Government with a long-term commitment to the NHS and who will deliver the economy that can
	fund the NHS. They also want to know that they have a Government who will tell the truth about problems so that they get sorted out, which never used to happen before.

Madeleine Moon: Last week, as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease, I took evidence from professionals and patients who had been promised that £14 million would be available for communication support from April this year. Not a penny has been spent yet on equipment or new staff. I took phone calls from people who are end-stage kidney diseased who are frightened by the announcement that kidney dialysis is to go from NHS England to clinical commissioning groups. Will the Secretary of State get a grip, make sure that the money that is there is spent, and stop the disastrous move of kidney dialysis to CCGs, which are not functioning?

Jeremy Hunt: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady, I will very happily look into the concerns she raises, but what we are talking about today is more money going into the NHS because the Government got a grip of public finances and got the economy growing. That means more money for people with long-term conditions, including people with motor neurone disease. The hon. Lady should therefore welcome today’s announcement.

Andrew Bridgen: According to clinicians in charge of health care and budgets, this Government have done much to take the politics out of running the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that average productivity in the NHS has improved under this Government, and does he agree that, given the outrageous comments of the Labour leader, it is clear that Labour is happy to see the NHS used as a political football?

Jeremy Hunt: I think what the public find very perplexing about this is that the Labour party opposed reforms that mean we have 10,000 more doctors and nurses on the front line. Labour is now not welcoming additional financial investment in the NHS that means we will have even more doctors and nurses, and it does not recognise the fundamental point that affects the whole NHS, which is that, in employing those extra doctors and nurses, we have to back them with a culture of safety and compassionate care that we never saw under Labour.

Tom Blenkinsop: Our NHS is indeed reliant on a strong economy, but we should note that the UK’s state deficit is the worst in the European Union at the moment and our state debt has more than doubled since May 2010. Can I take it from the Secretary of State that I can go back to the constituents of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and tell them that their acute hospital trust will have its £91 million deficit removed; that its PFI, which was opened up in the Major years, will be dealt with properly; that Hemlington, Park End and Skelton medical centres will stay open: and that minor injuries units in Guisborough and Brotton will remain open?

Jeremy Hunt: I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the first Labour Member to say in this House that a strong NHS needs a strong economy. May I encourage him to transmit that message to those on his
	Front Bench, and perhaps to the shadow Chancellor, who might then understand why people in the NHS are backing this Government because they know that we will deliver a strong economy? I do not know whether we can do all the things the hon. Gentleman talked about, but we will have a better chance with the fastest-growing economy in the G7.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the support that he has personally given to Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency, including, at a meeting last week, a commitment of £5.5 million to increase its A and E capacity. Can he assure me that hospitals in special measures that have problems going back to 2006 with high death rates will be given extra resources from the funding announced today to ensure that they are turned around as quickly as possible?

Jeremy Hunt: I assure my hon. Friend, who has campaigned very hard to improve standards at Medway hospital, that, first, we want to support its doctors and nurses, who are more passionate than anyone about putting this difficult period behind them; and secondly, that I have no greater focus than on making sure that we do turn around these hospitals in difficulty. It is a challenging process, but the extra funds that I have announced today will benefit all hospitals, including Medway.

Jim Cunningham: The Secretary of State has boasted about the numbers of doctors and nurses coming through on his watch, but that actually started on Labour’s watch because, as he has said, the process takes seven years. What proportion of this new investment in the national health service is to be invested in Coventry, particularly given the disparity regarding doctors’ surgeries and the loss of doctors?

Jeremy Hunt: The training may have started under Labour, but if we do not have enough money in the NHS budget, we cannot pay for these doctors and nurses. We can do that because we took a decision, bitterly opposed by Labour, to disband the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities and to lose 21,000 administrators so that we could pay for 10,000 extra doctors and nurses, including in Coventry.

James Morris: The achievement of parity of esteem between mental and physical health in the NHS is absolutely fundamental to its future. As the Secretary of State will know, the Government have a reasonably good record on moving towards parity of esteem. Does he agree that we need not only more investment in mental health services, but, more importantly, better commissioning and a change of culture towards viewing patients as a single whole?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend has campaigned incredibly hard on this issue. I totally agree that the key aspect is a change in the approach of commissioners. People with mental health needs often have physical health needs and different needs relating to gambling and alcohol addictions, for example, that are connected to their mental health problems. Unless all these issues are tackled together, we are unlikely to make progress. We are very proud to have enshrined in legislation parity of esteem as something that we must achieve in the NHS. Today’s announcement will help this to go further.

Mike Kane: Given that delayed discharges have reached a record high, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that this money will not be paid for by further cuts to local government social care budgets?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what the Chancellor says on Wednesday about the Department for Communities and Local Government settlement. This Government have recognised that the fate of the social care system and the fate of the NHS are closely entwined, and that we cannot support the NHS at the expense of the social care system because the two go together. That is why we see close working with the Better Care fund.

Robert Jenrick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) highlighted, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust remains in special measures. I know that the Secretary of State has taken an interest in this. The trust has many failings, but it also has one hand tied behind its back in the form of a particularly egregious PFI deal that takes up 16% of its budget every year. Is there anything he can do to review trusts that are in special measures and have particularly difficult PFI settlements?

Jeremy Hunt: I remember visiting Newark hospital with my hon. Friend before he was elected, and I know that he campaigns very hard on the issues facing the trust. I will happily take that issue away and look at it. It is worth saying that the doctors and nurses at that hospital are working incredibly hard to turn things around, and they have already made great progress.

Andrew Stephenson: rose—

Marcus Jones: rose—

Mr Speaker: Wow—what a choice! I call Mr Andrew Stephenson.

Andrew Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am honoured.
	I very much welcome the £2 billion of additional funding announced today. This morning, I was at Airedale hospital for the preview of its new £6.3 million A and E department, which will open to the public this Wednesday. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all the hospital’s NHS staff and management, and its patients, who have been involved from the start of the process in making sure that the new A and E department, which is more than double the size of the old one, is now a reality?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so. It is an absolutely brilliant hospital. I was really impressed when I saw that it has integrated its IT systems with those of local GPs better than anywhere else I have seen in the UK, and it is now looking at integrating those systems with local residential care homes. It has a fantastic Skype system for patients who are vulnerable and have mobility problems. It is an amazing place, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to it.

Marcus Jones: The previous Labour Government left my constituents with one of the worst health funding allocations in England. Despite the extra investment that this Government have put in, the issue still has not
	been properly resolved. Having heard my right hon. Friend’s advice earlier, I will be making representations to NHS England. Will he join me in supporting my constituents in getting a fairer funding deal?

Jeremy Hunt: I want everyone to have a fairer funding deal, and today’s announcement is significant in that respect. One of the reasons it has been difficult to help people to move closer to their target funding allocations is that the increases in the NHS budget have been only 0.1% every year, so we have not had the margins necessary to make changes. Precisely by how much, and where, we make those changes is a matter for NHS England, but I will happily refer my hon. Friend’s concerns to it.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Mr Speaker: I call Sir Richard Ottaway to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has three minutes in which to make such an application.

Richard Ottaway: I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration —namely, the decision of the Chinese Government to ban the Foreign Affairs Committee from visiting Hong Kong.
	In 1984, Britain and China signed a joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong when the UK’s lease expired in 1997. It included a commitment to a “one country, two systems” style of government and to its rights, freedoms and way of life remaining unchanged for 50 years. In August this year, the Chinese National People’s Congress issued a decision changing the way in which the chief executive would be elected. This confirmed earlier suspicions and has led to widespread protest in Hong Kong. In the Government’s latest six-monthly report to Parliament on Hong Kong, the Foreign Secretary said:
	“the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel they have a real stake in the outcome...there is still some way to go for consensus to be reached.”
	As a result of this concern, the FAC decided in July to hold an inquiry entitled “The UK’s relations with Hong Kong: 30 years after the Joint Declaration”. In August, I was invited by the Chinese ambassador to discuss the inquiry. At the meeting, the Committee was abruptly accused of meddling in China’s and Hong Kong’s internal affairs. We were asked to discontinue our inquiry and told that we would be unwelcome in Hong Kong. The Committee gave full consideration to the ambassador’s views and decided to continue with its inquiry; indeed, we felt it would be an abrogation of our duties not to do so.
	Since then, the rhetoric from the Chinese Government has intensified. Ten days ago, we were informed that some would consider our visit to Hong Kong to be of support to the protestors of Occupy Central and other illegal activities. Last Friday afternoon, I was formally informed—by the deputy Chinese ambassador, the chargé d’affaires, because the ambassador is abroad—that the Committee would be denied entry to Hong Kong. The Government have rightly said that the ban is mistaken and counterproductive. I agree. It is an affront not just to this House but to the men and women of the free world. I believe that this House should have the opportunity to express its views as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely “The ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong”. This is an extremely serious matter for which, I confess, I can think of no exactly comparable
	precedent in my 17 and a half years in the House. As is my duty, I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
	Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
	Application agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 2 December, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application. I hope that that is pleasing to the right hon. Gentleman, to members of his Committee and to the House.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 February 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 12 May 2014 in that Session (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00pm at today’s sitting.
	(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Nos 97 to 107 7 pm 
			 Nos 74 and 127 to 131 8.30 pm 
			 Nos 1 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143 10 pm 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	(4) Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(5) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Mr Speaker: I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 64
	 — 
	Likelihood of substantially different oucome for applicant

Chris Grayling: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 98 to 106 and Government motions to disagree.
	Lords amendment 107, and amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

Chris Grayling: Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, it might be helpful to remind the House why these reforms are so important. Judicial review was developed as a tool for citizens to challenge decisions taken by public bodies that unlawfully and adversely affect their lives. That remains as important today as ever, and nothing in these reforms will prevent those citizens from using judicial review in the future. As Lord Chancellor I take my responsibility to uphold the rule of law very seriously, but I do not believe that the way in which it has evolved in relation to the current use of judicial review is consistent with or necessary to uphold the rule of law, and I believe the time has clearly come to set some limits to prevent misuse.
	Judicial review was never intended to be a tool for pressure groups to seek to disrupt perfectly lawful decision making in Government and Parliament, it was never designed to be used as a political campaigning tool, and it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country. Yet, in far too many examples, that is precisely what it has become and is why reform is necessary. It is also why the three areas of our proposed reforms covered by this debate tonight are so important.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the judicial process must be robust and fair, it must not be open to constant abuse?

Chris Grayling: Indeed. I am genuinely baffled as to why the Opposition are so set against many of these reforms when many of their predecessors as shadow Ministers or in government raised many of the same concerns. I will challenge them over one or two of the issues later, because I find their position inexplicable.
	Whoever wins the general election will have to take some very difficult decisions in the next Parliament. Those decisions are not ones that any of us would wish to have to take, any more than we in government wanted to take some of the difficult decisions that we have faced in this Parliament, but tough times mean tough decisions—decisions in the interests of this country. And yet, whichever party is in government after next May will face a wave of pressure groups trying to use judicial review to delay decisions, to avoid spending reductions, and to generate publicity for their own cause.
	If a group can find a clever enough lawyer, almost any Government decision can be judicially reviewed, and very many are, not necessarily on the basis of specific breaches of specific laws, but far too often on a loose argument that something was not quite right with the consultation paper, that there should have been a bit more consultation, or that a tough decision seen in isolation was irrational. Without undermining the essential core of judicial review, we need to restore common sense to the way in which the judicial review system works, and that is what we are working to do.

Bob Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the important point made by Lord Horam that there is a difference between a balance to protect the rights of the citizen in specific cases, and a situation where, sadly, judicial review can be moved through pressure groups to what is effectively a review of the merits, rather than of the procedures, often contrary to the wishes of the communities that are most directly affected?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. Judicial review has become a vehicle that is used as one of the tools to campaign, to delay and to challenge, not necessarily in the interests of the broader society or the broader community, but because it provides a vehicle to make a point or to delay something for financial reasons. It makes no sense to have a system that can be abused in the way it is often is.
	We listened carefully to the debate in the House of Lords, and as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we have suggested some modifications to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences of what we are working to do. I hope that the House will say clearly today that having agreed those safeguards, we want to see this package of reforms pass into law.

Anne Main: On safeguards, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that local authorities will not be able to dumb down their standards, knowing that there is not likely to be a judicial review, and that they will still always go through the correct process, as they need to do, and not think that they are beyond reproach?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that the Bill will not stop organisations being judicially reviewed where they are at fault. It does not stop organisations being judicially reviewed for constant or serious underperformance or failure to fulfil their duties. What it stops is judicial review on technicalities. It stops the system being used for purposes for which it should not be used.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Lord Chancellor view as a technicality the recent consultation on changes to legal aid ignoring the Welsh language aspect altogether and allowing half the time for the consultation to go into the Welsh language issue, as opposed to the whole time? Is that something that we should just ignore?

Chris Grayling: In that particular case, we fulfilled the orders of the court after the first judicial review hearing. I did not agree with the judge in that initial
	ruling. I considered an appeal, but looking at the detail of the ruling, I decided that it was more in the interests of the system that we were trying to protect and develop to move ahead with a further period of consultation. That is what we did, and we have published our responses arising from that consultation. We took the opportunity to revisit our original decisions and to look at whether any further changes needed to be made. That was embodied in the document that we published last week.
	There are three simple principles in the areas of debate covered by these motions. I challenge the Opposition to explain why they so strongly disagree with those principles. First, parties should not be able to use minor technicalities in process as an excuse to bring a judicial review in order to delay an essential decision when there is very little likelihood that the outcome would be affected by that technicality. It is a simple principle. There is an exceptional circumstances clause which still allows judicial discretion in cases where there is a particularly distinctive characteristic, but this is designed to stop organisations judicially reviewing a process on the basis of a minor flaw in process, only to have the effect of delaying a difficult change—delaying for financial reasons and trying to push a change back a few months so that the financial impact is not felt as soon.
	That is the reality of what is happening, and this proviso seems a perfectly sensible means of ensuring that the Government can take decisions in a timely and necessary way. In the unhappy event that the shadow Secretary of State finds himself in my chair or his colleagues find themselves in other Ministers’ chairs, they will think that it is sensible and logical way to make sure that the wheels of government move at an appropriate pace.

Geoffrey Cox: I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that some Government Members, and I include myself, have some concern about the reforms he is promoting. Will he help me to resolve a very difficult dilemma by telling me and the House what he regards as a minor technicality? Judges do not generally grant leave for judicial review on minor technicalities—they have to be based on matters of serious abuse of fair process—so I am concerned and troubled by what he considers a technicality.

Chris Grayling: I hate to disabuse my hon. and learned Friend, but such cases happen all the time and very regularly. Very early in this job, I faced a judicial review—we eventually won it after a hearing, but only following a delay and some considerable cost—from a representative group that argued that changes to a part of the compensation system should not proceed because of a technical detail concerning how the consultation had been carried out. It went to a hearing, which we won, but it cost the taxpayer substantial amounts of money and delayed the process. It was on a technicality, and there was no likelihood of there being a different outcome. If he talks to Ministers from across the Government, he will find that such cases happen regularly—for example, if a nuance of a consultation has not been done thoroughly or properly, or if it was fractionally shorter than the precedent for similar consultations. I am afraid that such cases do happen, and they delay the wheels of government. Let me talk about the other two areas, because they are also acute problems.

Julie Hilling: The right hon. Gentleman says “all the time”. Will he give us a notion of how often that is—once a day, once a week, once a month? How many times have such cases happened since April, for instance? He is giving the impression that they happen all the time, but what does that mean?

Chris Grayling: A Minister is confronted by the practical threat of the arrival of a judicial review case virtually every week of the year. It is happening all the time. There are pre-action protocols all the time, and cases are brought regularly. Looking across the majority of a Department’s activities, Ministers face judicial review very regularly indeed. It happens weeks apart rather than months apart.

Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Chris Grayling: Let me set out the other two areas covered by the reforms, and I will then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
	The second thing we are trying to do is to stop third parties using people with no means as human shields, and effectively bringing broad-ranging cases on public policy by acting as interveners behind and alongside them, while being immune from financial risk if they lose. That is customarily discussed in terms of pressure groups, but it actually applies to big corporations as well.
	The third reform applies in a similar way. If an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who they are and who is backing them. Of all the disagreements of the House of Lords, I understand this one least. How is it possible for a judge to take a decision on costs and other aspects of a judicial review if he or she has absolutely no idea who is responsible for bringing it? Is it not right and proper for the court to know?
	Let me give an example to challenge Labour Members. If a large international, such as a tobacco company, wants to challenge the Government on a public policy decision, it can, under the current rules, set up a shell company, with a single—probably impecunious—director and use it as the front for the judicial review. If that happens, is it not right, proper and sensible for us to know which corporation is backing the judicial review? Labour Members may say that it could never happen, but it happened in the Richard III case, when a shell company with a single impecunious shareholder brought a judicial review against the Government, which cost the taxpayer a significant six-figure sum. It can and does happen.
	Why on earth would anybody disagree with the principle that if an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who it is and who is backing or supporting it? Why is that so unreasonable? I simply do not understand why the Labour party lined up with Cross Benchers in the House of Lords to oppose it. What is wrong with the principle? I challenge shadow Ministers to say—I will happily take an intervention—what is wrong with the idea that a court should know who is backing a judicial review or who is behind it?

Andy Slaughter: I would love the Secretary of State for once to use an example or any example that does not involve Richard III. He knows very well that the intention of his approach on clause 67 is not to be transparent, but to discourage small litigants—individual groups wishing to take on a big corporation—who would fear that all their funds were at risk. The vast majority of such cases are of that kind. He wants to suppress viable litigation, rather than in any way to be transparent.

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that that is complete nonsense. The amendments that we are discussing do not involve any financial risk at all. They are simply about the court knowing who is backing the judicial review. They are purely for information. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a court considering a judicial review to know who is backing it, and I am baffled about why the Labour party opposes that.
	We do not have much time for this debate, so I will focus my detailed remarks on clause 67, but I said that I would take another intervention.

Frank Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman talks of technicalities, but the law is full of technicalities—that is all it is. He says that Ministers and officials are frightened of judicial review, and so they should be. The pressure on them is to comply with laws and regulations that we have passed. We are encouraging law breaking if we let someone say, “Well, it’s okay. You can skate over that, or you can skate over this. You can get away with it. It was only a minor technicality.”

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that that is simply not right. Very many judicial reviews are not about whether we have broken a law passed by this place—of course, we must be challenged if that happens—but are based on a much looser interpretation of what should or should not happen. It is not based on statute, but, for example, about why we have run a consultation for six rather than nine weeks given that the previous one was for nine weeks. The truth is that such arguments are brought to the courts by people who seek to delay the impact of decisions. I must say that if Labour Members find themselves taking difficult decisions in government after the election, they will discover that a judicial review’s ability to delay key decisions is against the interests of this country, and they will wish that they had supported rather than opposed us.
	As hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we will ask the House of Lords to reconsider its opposition on most of the measures. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67. We disagree with the Lords amendments, which undermine the clauses agreed by this House. Each amendment would take the heart out of the reforms by undermining any duty to give effect to the key requirements. However, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67, and we have moved by proposing an alternative model.
	If this House approves the amendments in lieu, clause 67 will continue to give the courts significant leeway in making cost orders. It will be for the court to consider whether any of the four conditions have been met. It will preserve the court’s role in deciding whether costs were caused by the intervener and incurred by the party
	reasonably. Where the court is of the view that exceptional circumstances would make the award of costs under the clause inappropriate, it need not make an award.
	That is a crucial point on all of this. There are still provisions that give the judiciary the freedom, in exceptional circumstances, to say, “This is a particularly distinctive case, and we need to pursue an approach that is different from the norm.” We have left in provisions for such exceptional circumstances, but on clause 67 we have taken on board some of the concerns expressed. The amendments in lieu are not about preventing legitimate intervention in support of a case brought on behalf of a disadvantaged individual, but are about preventing a powerful group from using someone with no money as a human shield for a case in which the group intervenes behind that individual, with the public picking up the cost regardless of whether the case is won or lost. That should not happen.
	We believe that the amendments in lieu strike a sensible balance. They meet the concerns expressed by hon. Members from different parts of the House in a way that will reassure both them and those in the other place that our intention is tackle the challenge of such human shields, not to remove altogether the ability to intervene in cases where there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is therefore re-establishing judicial discretion?

Chris Grayling: As I just said, we have never taken away judicial discretion. We have left in place the clause on exceptional circumstances. Almost every week, this House passes measures that set tramlines for the courts to operate within. We set maximum sentences, but if the maximum sentence for a crime is five years, we do not say that judges should give a five-year sentence; we give them the flexibility to decide what is the right length of time below that.
	We are taking a similar approach with these proposals. We are saying to judges, “Look, you’ve got some flexibility, but there are parameters that we need you to operate within.” To my mind, that brings common sense back to the system of judicial review and deals with the frustrations with a system that can be abused. It does not create a situation in which legitimate judicial reviews cannot be brought.
	Surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) would admit that an organisation should not be able to bring a case to court free of financial risk because it is shadowing behind somebody who has no means and therefore cannot have costs awarded against them; that an organisation should not be able to set up a shell company to bring a judicial review without any information being available to the court about who is behind the shell company; and that an organisation should not be able to delay a difficult spending decision by arguing to a court that the whole process should start all over again because of a minor technicality. Those things happen on a regular basis and they must change.
	These reforms are essential in restoring common sense to judicial review. I hope that the House will back the motions to disagree and the amendments in lieu.

Andy Slaughter: Although it is some two and a half years since I last spoke on a series of Lords defeats of Ministry of Justice legislation, I have an acute feeling of déjà vu. On 17 April 2012, this House considered the 11 defeats that their lordships had inflicted on the infamous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Today, we examine the four considerable dents that have been put in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The three that we are considering in this group of amendments substantially amend part 4 of the Bill, which seeks to hobble the administrative law remedy of judicial review.
	LASPO is fresh in my mind today for two reasons. First, those 11 defeats were whittled down, in the course of ping-pong, to some important but narrow wins. Secondly, the Government have spent the past 30 months trying to squirm their way out of even those concessions. The MOJ is still deciding what to do about the High Court decision that its review of costs rules for mesothelioma cases was unlawful. Let us remember that it is trying to enforce, against the will of Parliament, the payment by sufferers of that terrible disease of up to 25% of their damages in legal fees. Further proceedings are pending on the evidential requirement for obtaining legal aid in domestic violence cases—another defeat for the Government.
	Both Houses may wish to note how the Government have sought to dodge the undertakings that were given to two of the most vulnerable groups in society—terminally ill cancer sufferers and domestic violence victims—when they look at any purported concessions in the Bill. Of course, the fact that a Government who go back on their commitments to Parliament and let people down are held to account by the courts is at the root of this attack on judicial review. The Lord Chancellor has lost six judicial review actions in the past year and there are several strong cases in the pipeline. Might that have any bearing on his current attack on judicial review?
	For once, notwithstanding the truncated nature of the debate, I feel that we have enough time to debate an issue that the Government find very uncomfortable. That is not because there is a lack of arguments to put against part 4, but because they have already been put many times and have not been rebutted. On Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in both Houses, there have been long debates on the dangers and inequities of this attack on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen against the state.
	An unprecedented alliance of charities, the legal professions, the judiciary and victims of Government injustice has come together to support the Lords amendments. On the “Today” programme this morning, the noble Lord Woolf, who was a sponsor of the Government’s defeats, said that the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary and, thereby, the rule of law. All the arguments are on one side. Against the clear voice of the experts, which says that this attack on judicial review is a constitutional provocation, we have the childish statements from the Lord Chancellor, who says that judicial review is a left-wing conspiracy. He should tell that to those who are reliant on the independent living fund, the Gurkhas and the victims of care home abuse, or indeed the Countryside Alliance and Stop HS2, all of which are successful challengers of his Government’s arbitrary exercise of power.
	The only thing going for the Government is the majority that they hold in this House. The real issue today is whether they can use it to batter the other place into submission. Sadly, there are too few supporters of individual freedom on the Tory Benches. Tory Members either support the big corporation over the little man or have swallowed the Lord Chancellor’s infantile line that judicial review is all about subversive left-wing groups stopping the wheels of commerce turning. We are left to hope—I find it difficult even to say this—that the Lib Dems will wake from their comfortable ministerial sleeps to remember the time when they claimed to be the party of civil liberties. To wait is to hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as only one Liberal Democrat MP has bothered to attend this important debate on civil liberties and the rights of the individual, I do not think that we can have much hope.

Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend mentioned Lord Woolf. Will he remind the House which judicial position was held by Lord Woolf? Would he, like me, be more likely to agree with Harry Woolf than with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)?

Andy Slaughter: We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants in conducting this debate. The names that graced the amendments that were made in the House of Lords included not only the former Lord Chief Justice, but other esteemed lawyers such as Lord Pannick, the Labour spokesman Lord Beecham, Lord Carlile and many other senior jurists. Indeed, the President of the Supreme Court and the Master of the Rolls have also spoken out in clear and emphatic terms to say that the Government proposals are not just folly, but dangerous steps to take. I am amazed that any Lord Chancellor—even this one—would ignore those protestations.
	It is not wrong to see this concerted attack on judicial review as being of a piece with other reductions in access to justice that this Government have advanced, such as on legal aid, on no win, no fee, and on court and tribunal fees. However, judicial review seems to receive particular opprobrium from this Lord Chancellor. That is strange in many ways. Judicial review is already a remedy of last resort and already includes a permission stage. Its accessibility has been limited by the changes to the rules on legal aid for judicial review and the shortened time limits for applying. Indeed, Lord Justice Jackson, some of whose recommendations on costs and civil claims the Government have grabbed on to, advised that it was already very difficult for the ordinary citizen to apply for judicial review for want of funds and expert knowledge, and that we should look at broadening the basis for bringing a judicial review claim.
	The attack on judicial review should be of concern to us all. It is a remedy that can protect the rights of very vulnerable individuals, such as young prisoners and dementia sufferers; that can save whole communities from wrongful decisions by the state, such as when the closure of Lewisham’s accident and emergency department was ruled unlawful; and that can establish the law on important points of policy, often with the help of expert bodies that intervene to assist the court on a point of general principle. It is, as Liberty says,
	“a crucial tool which allows ordinary people to challenge decisions by the authorities—either because they’re unlawful, irrational, or made in the wrong way.”
	I suspect that if their lordships had not been interrupted by other business, they would have continued to neuter the clauses that deal with judicial review. As it is, they stopped at just three defeats for the Government, each of which was important. We urge all Members of the House to vote against the motions to disagree in respect of each of the clauses at issue. For the avoidance of doubt, we will press to a vote, just as their Lordships did, the matters that relate to the “highly likely” test, financial information, and interveners.

Chris Grayling: Since the hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention to support all the Lords amendments, will he explain why he thinks it appropriate to allow organisations that back judicial reviews to remain anonymous?

Andy Slaughter: I will not speak for long because we have limited time, but I will come on to those matters in a few moments.
	It is not only Labour peers who were rallied by Lord Beecham who share our view. Indeed, as he pointed out, the Lord Chancellor’s proposals have been roundly condemned by every independent and bipartisan body that considered them, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other Committees of both Houses. Furthermore, the former Conservative party chairman, Lord Deben, referred to the changes as “out of line” and “unacceptable”, and Baroness Williams called them an “act of absolute tragedy” that she was “very troubled” by. Lord Howe voted against the Government, as did many pillars of the legal establishment—so much for the Lord Chancellor’s left-wing plot.
	Each amendment that the Government have resisted has a particular point to make. On the “highly likely” test, all their lordships are saying is that judicial discretion should be retained, and that the court may refuse judicial review if it concludes that it is “highly likely” that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. If we stick with the Government’s proposal and disagree with the amendment, public bodies will be allowed to escape responsibility for unlawful decisions. In the long run it would change the role of judges in judicial review cases as they would be invited to second-guess how decisions have been taken. The Government are confusing remedy with unlawfulness and potentially creating far more problems at earlier stages of judicial review cases—and causing far more court time to be taken up—because the court will have to consider the implications of its decisions and not the process under review, as is the case at the moment.
	On financial barriers, the evidence—I emphasise that word—of practitioners and those who have represented parties on all sides suggests that the chilling effect of the clauses will be felt first by people of limited means who look for support in their judicial reviews. That could be family members—for example in a care home case—or individuals in a community, perhaps on a planning case, but it could also be charities and other not-for profit organisations. Such organisations have said clearly that although they are currently prepared to support judicial review proceedings, if there is a risk that the court will look at the funders and potentially penalise them in costs, their trustees will not be prepared to continue doing
	that, whatever their support for the individual action. Each clause in part 4 purports to be a simple tinkering change and a way of dealing with things at the margin to ensure that unmeritorious cases do not come forward. However, evidence from the judiciary, practitioners, interveners and everyone who has participated in the process suggests that the clauses will have a chilling and discouraging effect. That is as true for provisions on financial barriers as for the “highly likely” test or interveners.
	The issue of interveners has taken centre stage, and at an early point in proceedings the Government said that they would table amendments to deal with the concerns expressed. We had one of those little dances that takes place between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, when the Liberal Democrats say, “We’re not happy with this, can we have a concession?”, and grudgingly, at the last minute—last Friday in this case—we have a concession.
	Let us consider the concession the Government are proposing. What they originally proposed, and what the House of Lords disagreed with, is the idea that only in exceptional circumstances and very rare cases would interveners be protected from paying costs. That does not mean their own costs, which interveners customarily pay, but those of all parties involved. That was clearly wrong, and the Government appear to accept that. As the deputy president of the Supreme Court said, interventions are of great assistance to the court and there can be merit in interventions. Therefore, amendments have been tabled. It is clear why Labour supports what the House of Lords said, and that the matter should be—as it is now—at the discretion of the court. The court has completely adequate powers, should it wish to exercise them, to punish or find against interveners on costs if it believes there is no merit in the intervention or if it believes—this is unlikely—that time has been wasted during proceedings. That matter is currently, and should properly remain, at the discretion of the judge.
	Let us consider the amendments, because this is the most disingenuous part of the debate. We waited months—since June, I think—to see what concession the Liberal Democrats with all their bravery had wrung out of the Government. The opinion of everyone who has considered the amendments since they were published just before the weekend is that not only do they not address the issue, they make the situation worse. The reason for that is simple. Previously, there could at least be exceptional circumstances. Now, a series of criteria must be met, otherwise a mandatory duty means that all costs associated with the intervention would be recoverable by all other parties, including losing parties. Therefore in certain ill-defined circumstances, the court would have no discretion to act to prevent an unjust outcome, despite interveners having been granted permission to intervene by the court, and encouraged to proceed. That will have a more damaging effect than the Government’s original proposal to create a presumption that costs would be payable except in exceptional circumstances. Only this Government could make the situation worse by making a concession.
	In a way, the wording does not matter. The net effect of those criteria is to set up retrospective tests that mean that the chilling effect will apply. Interveners are typically charities, not-for-profit organisations and others who may perhaps have funds to pay their own costs, but
	will not risk the definition of terms such as “in substance”, “taken as a whole”, “significant assistance”, or whether something is “necessary” for the court to consider whether someone has behaved unreasonably. A judicial review often develops from the permission stage through to a full hearing, and during that time it is perfectly possible that certain facts become more or less relevant. What impecunious charity will take those risks? This is another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by setting up impossible hurdles and mandatory tests where matters should be left to the discretion of the judge.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.

Andy Slaughter: I give up with the Secretary of State. We are talking about interveners, who are there to assist the court and broaden the issue where it is helpful for matters of public policy. If he cannot see that after having discussed the Bill since February, I really do give up on him.
	The Government proposals would prevent judicial review if they can persuade a court that it is highly likely that an unlawful act would have been lawful if done differently. That is a recipe for poor decision making. They will hobble the attempts of people to raise the considerable funds needed to bring a case and weaken their ability to have protection from the Government’s costs if they lose. Most bizarrely, they discourage the intervention of expert bodies, such as charities and civil society organisations, which often assist the court in making the right decision. Under pressure on this last point, or to give the usual fig leaf to the Liberal Democrats, a series of last-minute amendments have been tabled by the Lord Chancellor on interveners, but the opinion of experts who have looked at them is that, if anything, they make the Bill worse.
	Labour MPs will therefore vote to uphold judicial review and the rights of the individual against the state. We will oppose the motion to disagree with each and every one of the Lords amendments in this group. We will vote against the Government’s amendments in lieu. We may, I hope, be joined by one or two libertarian Tories, although I am not holding my breath. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats, so keen to shout about their love of liberty before voting for legal aid cuts in secret courts, will join us in the Lobby.

Geoffrey Cox: I regret the tone of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), which fell beneath the standards the
	House is entitled to expect on so important a matter. The tone was cynical and frankly insulting to those of us on the Government Benches who have spent many years of our lives fighting for the rights of individuals in the courts.
	I should, before I begin, draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I appear in courts, specifically in the administrative court, quite frequently. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, hurling yet another insult. I do not know what he was like in the legal profession, but if he won as few arguments by his gracelessness and charmlessness as he is winning this evening, no doubt he switched professions with very good reason indeed.
	In substance, some of the points the hon. Gentleman makes—they are not, I think, his; he is merely puppeting and gibbeting the points made by his betters and those more equipped than he to make the criticisms—are, I have to say, correct in the substance of the matter. That is why I say to the Secretary of State that, although one cannot always choose one’s friends in this House on specific topics, I am extremely troubled by what he is introducing. I sympathise and understand the frustration he feels with the industry, it may well seem to those in charge of the Executive, that judicial review has become. I understand that, but my concern is that the measures my right hon. Friend is introducing are not well targeted or adjusted to the mischief he is seeking to suppress.
	One of the examples I give is the provision to introduce a likelihood test as to the outcome of any judicial review. The problem with this measure is that it does two things, unintended no doubt in their consequence by the Secretary of State. First, it will turn permission hearings, and substantive hearings if permission is granted, into an immensely detailed and cumbersome process of trawling through fact and evidence so as to equip the judge to take a decision on whether it was more likely than not that the decision would have been taken anyway, and in order to demonstrate that it would have been taken anyway if the flaw had been identified by the judge. The presupposition is that the judge has identified a technical flaw, as my right hon. Friend would call it, either in consultation, natural justice or perhaps even discrimination. The public authority will then seek to justify its position by saying, “Well, it would have made no difference and you, the judge, on all of the evidence, can take the view yourself that this would have made no difference.” That converts the judge into the decision-maker.
	This is the second point that troubles me: not only will it become a cumbersome fact-heavy process, which judicial review is not intended to be and most judges fight very hard to ensure that it is not, as a consequence of the Secretary of State’s amendment; it will place the judge much closer to being a decision-maker on these matters that ought to be for the Executive. Judges generally observe, and they should, a long-stop position. It is only if the decision is unlawful in that it is irrational, perverse, procedurally improper or taken for extraneous motives. That is a very high bar, but the Secretary of State’s amendment would lower that bar. It would put the judge in the position of being much closer to the decision-maker. In fact, it transgresses a very important constitutional principle, which is that the judge should
	not get involved in examining the merits of a decision. He is looking only at whether it is irrational, something of which the bar is so high that it is unlikely and that is why so many cases fail. If one asks the judge to make a decision on whether it is probable that the decision would have been taken anyway, one immediately introduces him into the arena of the merits and the facts. That will cause an avalanche of new evidence to be submitted and will mean that the judge starts to get much closer to making decisions on the merits and the facts. That is why I am troubled by the Secretary of State’s amendment.
	If it were the case that minor technicalities of the kind the Secretary of State characterises were habitually accepted by judges, I would understand the problem. However, with respect to the Secretary of State, that is not my experience. Certainly, cases may be brought on that basis, but minor technicalities lead to the decision being defective. In my experience those arguments are very soon rebutted, but the Secretary of State has a perfectly right point that there is a case for accelerating judicial review and creating a much more robust system for allowing those kinds of cases to be winnowed out earlier.
	The second matter I want to address relates to the interveners. The Government’s original position did trouble me and I think the new provisions are an improvement. I have to say that I found the remarks from the Opposition Front Bench quite surprising. It seems to me that there has been a genuine effort by the Government to move in the direction of those who had real concerns. I do not perceive the risk to be as great as the extraordinary and extreme language adopted by the Opposition proposed. What is being suggested here is not unreasonable, provided that it is interpreted broadly and generously by the courts, as no doubt it will be. What it suggests is that an intervener must effectively have wasted the court’s time. In other words, the intervener must have been of no assistance, or no significant assistance, to the court: that he has targeted his submissions where the court is not helped by them, he has behaved unreasonably, or, alternatively, has taken on the main function of applicant in those circumstances. While the provisions are broad, I think the courts can be trusted to interpret them in favour of bringing meritorious claims, and I would have no problem going into the Lobby with the Secretary of State in that respect.
	I wonder if the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to make further remarks on this subject, however, because at the moment I cannot give him my support in the Lobbies on matters relating to the earlier clauses, specifically the “highly likely” clause. The inevitability test the courts have previously adopted drew an important constitutional line that he is asking them to cross. The clause will create pragmatic difficulties in the courts and mean that flagrant and absolutely unacceptable behaviour by the Executive could be condoned by saying, “Well, it made no difference.” There are times when courts ought to mark a fundamental lack of due process.

Chris Grayling: The “exceptional circumstances” provisions would allow a judge to say, “This is a flagrant case and must be heard.”

Geoffrey Cox: I hear the Secretary of State, but the Bill does not refer to “minor technicalities”; as the Bill reads, the default position would be that any abuse of due process
	or power could be justified and defended on the basis that the decision would in any event probably have been taken. It is difficult to make “exceptional circumstances” clauses work, because the courts say, “Well, ‘exceptional circumstances’ cannot mean a lack of fairness or an abuse of power.” I have spent many years examining these kinds of clauses and arguing them in the courts, and I know that “exceptional circumstances” clauses are rarely invoked, because courts are reluctant to acknowledge them as a standard resort in such circumstances. It would take something extreme indeed for a court to be persuaded it was exceptional. On the other hand, abuses of power happen quite often, I am afraid, and the clause is likely to condone those abuses of power, whereas often where there is an abuse, it is right that the decision be taken again.

Elfyn Llwyd: Lords amendments 97 to 102 were carried in the other place to ensure that courts maintained their discretion in determining whether to grant a judicial review by making use of the “highly likely” test. Groups such as Justice have rightly concluded that if these amendments are defeated, it will change the role of judges by inviting them to second-guess how decisions might otherwise have been taken. From his experience, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has detailed some very potent arguments why the amendments should be upheld. Parliament should never seek to undermine the courts’ discretion; courts should be free to determine whether to apply the “no difference” test, and to legislate otherwise would impede the integrity of our legal system. I therefore support these amendments.
	Lords amendments 105 and 106 would allow the courts to consider the circumstances of individual cases in determining whether to grant an application for judicial review, even in cases where third-party information is not readily available. In clause 66, the Government have tried to find yet another means of limiting the circumstances where applications for judicial review can be heard. The amendments seek to ensure that applications can be heard in cases where third-party information is not easily available.
	Judicial review is often the only means by which individuals can hold the Executive responsible for wrong -doing, yet the Government are trying to shut down that avenue for redress. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said it sees no evidence to support the Government’s reforms, and neither does Justice, Liberty, JustRights, Human Rights Watch, the Howard League, Redress, Inquest, Mencap, Amnesty International—the list goes on; can anyone report which groups actually support the Government in these changes? [Hon. Members: “The Whips.”] Yes, the Whips.
	On clause 67, Lords amendment 107 would maintain courts’ discretion over whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of relevant parties and vice versa. As drafted, the Bill would compel the court to order interveners to pay such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. The provisions in clause 67 are among the most disturbing in the Bill. Unamended, the clause would ensure that charitable organisations and individuals with expertise could no longer enrich the opinion of the courts by intervening in cases where
	their expertise would be of use because they could not justify the risk to their trustees, funders or members of supporting litigation. As the noble Lord Carlile asked in the other place:
	“How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 1607.]
	Yet the plans would still allow Departments and corporations with huge funds to intervene and hence play a pivotal part in the development of public law.
	I ask the House to reconsider the Government’s proposals in the context of the various and—I am trying to avoid vitriol—crippling reforms to access to justice in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result of the significant cuts in that Act, more individuals will be looking to charitable organisations for support in getting justice. It seems to me that clause 67 will take away this last resort. I am afraid the Government seem intent on restricting access to justice so that only those with the least to lose can gain redress. Why do they think it necessary to pursue this agenda, which will throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite the perceived misuses of the law relating to judicial review? The hon. and learned Gentleman, a far more experienced lawyer than me, has referred to the time-honoured practice of judicial review—the Wednesbury principles and so on—and the practices in place to ensure that Departments act reasonably in all circumstances. Why should we not uphold the individuals’ rights to ensure that Departments act reasonably?
	In conclusion, Justice said:
	“Punitive and disproportionate, these measures are designed to deter any organisation with limited funds acting as an intervener. In practice, this means that – even in important cases with a constitutional impact which reaches far beyond the immediate interests of the parties - the court will no longer benefit from expert advice and information provided from cash-poor and experience rich charities and NGOs.”
	I think that says it all. As we heard earlier, senior judges themselves are on the record as saying that the courts are enriched by the interventions of these people, who know exactly what they are talking about.

Bob Neill: I commend to this House the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the other House. He supported the Bill and set out a sensible balance, as did the Minister, Lord Faulks, himself no slouch as a Minister. It is right that those who come to the Queen’s courts in a public hearing should not shield their true identity or who truly funds them. The Government are right to insist on that point.
	It is legitimate for Parliament to set the parameters within which the undoubtedly important system of judicial review works. That is what the Bill seeks to do: it strives to strike a fair balance. I hope the House will support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is absolutely critical that we have a comprehensible and credible system of judicial review. I want to see that as much as anyone else, but the mission creep of some areas of judicial review, very often for politically motivated purposes, undermines the true purpose of judicial review as a legitimate and important remedy for the individual. I believe that the Government’s proposal, despite the rather hyperbolic—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 319, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 97 disagreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F)
	Lords amendments 98 to 102 disagreed to.

Clause 65
	 — 
	Provision of information about financial resources

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 103.—(Mr Vara.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 315, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 103 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 104 to 106 disagreed to.

Clause 67
	 — 
	Interveners and Costs

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 107.—(Mr Vara.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 312, Noes 200.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 107 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (e) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 107.—(Chris Grayling.)
	Question put, That the amendments be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 314, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Amendments (a) to (e) made in lieu of Lords amendment 107.

Clause 29
	 — 
	Secure colleges and other places for detention of young offenders etc

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 127 to 131.

Andrew Selous: As it has been some months since we last debated the Government’s plans for secure colleges, let me briefly remind Members of our ambition for secure colleges to transform the experience of young people in custody. At present, 68% of detained young people reoffend within 12 months of release—that is the highest reoffending rate of any group of offenders. Despite that poor outcome, we are paying on average about £100,000 a year for each place in youth custody—the figure rises to more than £200,000 a year for places in secure children’s homes, though the reoffending outcomes are no different. So it is clear that carrying on as we are is simply not an option. The Government believe that we must have higher ambitions for turning around the lives of troubled young people who end up in custody, and that putting education at the heart of youth custody, properly integrated with health and other support services, is the way to equip these young people with the skills and self-discipline they need to build productive, law-abiding lives on release.
	Secure colleges will do that by being places of education first and places of detention second. We want to move away from the culture of bars on windows, and foster one of engagement and personal development. Our intention is to test the secure college model by opening a secure college pathfinder in Leicestershire in 2017. This purpose-built facility will, for the first time, provide detained young people with a secure learning environment in which education has been designed as the core of a regime tailored to the specific needs of young people.

Julian Huppert: I understand the aspiration to try to provide something that is educationally rather than penally driven, and we all hope it works. Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that it will not quite work? So would it not be sensible to phase things in, starting off by involving just boys over 15 and then expanding the scheme only if it actually works?

Andrew Selous: The intention is not to introduce girls and children under 15 at the start. We have engaged throughout this process and we intend to carry on doing so. We will, through a competition to be launched next year, invite potential operators to demonstrate how they would deliver innovative education and rehabilitation services to these young people. So I am disappointed that we are today discussing Lords amendment 74, which excludes girls and under-15s from secure colleges, denying them access to the substantial benefits that we believe the secure college model will deliver for detained young people. I recognise the arguments that have been made during the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, about the particular needs of girls and under-15s detained in custody. I recognise also the need for establishments to put in place appropriate protections to ensure that these more vulnerable groups are kept safe. Those are valid arguments, and the Government are extremely mindful of their responsibilities to these vulnerable young people.

Paul Flynn: The lack of any improvement over 40 years by any Government in reducing recidivism condemns us as politicians. We welcome any fresh initiative, but can the Minister tell us whether there is any model, anywhere in the world, where the system he is introducing has worked?

Andrew Selous: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, we have lamentably failed to reduce reoffending over a very long period. In addition, we spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money per place to achieve very poor results. I have seen good education in our current establishments, but I believe we can do better. The time is ripe for us to try something different, based on sound principles, putting education and health at the heart of what we are doing, and making appropriate interventions, all of which will be in place. We are confident that secure colleges can not only meet the needs of girls and younger children in custody, but improve on the education and reoffending outcomes that current facilities achieve.

Kate Green: I agree with the Minister that we should put education at the heart of the rehabilitation agenda for young people. Will he say what educational qualifications the staff at the secure college will have?

Andrew Selous: As the hon. Lady may know, we are going to run a competition, which I will describe shortly, to find an education provider. But we are committed to increasing the amount of time in education and we want innovative responses to raise standards further because, as she will know, the results at the moment are simply not good enough.
	As I have said, at this stage the Government have plans only for a single secure college pathfinder that will open in 2017, and it has been designed so that it is capable of housing about 300 young offenders aged 12 to 17. It is true that the majority of the young people in this first secure college will be boys aged 15 to 17, but that does not mean that girls and under-15s could not be safely accommodated on the same site and provided with the tailored services required to rehabilitate and educate them. Girls and boys aged 12 to 17 are already safely accommodated together in secure training centres, as well as in secure children’s homes.
	Our designs for the secure college pathfinder have been specifically developed to ensure that if girls and under-15s were to be placed there, they would be accommodated in separate and smaller living units, entirely distinct from the accommodation for the majority of older boys. In our consultation on our plans for secure college rules, we also proposed a rule that girls must be separately accommodated from boys.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister has more or less taken my speech away from me, because to a large extent my concerns have been allayed and it is good that he is running a pilot for boys to see how that works. But how long does he think an individual youngster has to spend in that set-up in order to gain education. In other words: is there a minimum time?

Andrew Selous: Obviously, how long children spend in these institutions is not up to us but up to the courts. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that significant improvements can be made in a short period—I have seen huge advances in a child’s reading within an eight-week period. So significant advances in education can be made in relatively short periods and, of course, many children are sentenced for considerably longer than that, as he will well know.

John Leech: Does the Minister envisage the girls and younger boys being educated completely separately from the older boys?

Andrew Selous: What we have committed to is separate living accommodation. When I visited a secure training centre recently, I saw young children—both girls and boys—happily learning how to put up wall paper and to cook banoffee pie. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation will be separate. The whole set up and design of the secure college will be such that it will be possible to have considerable separation if and when we need it. I hope that he is reassured by that.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Minister may be aware that when the Bill was in Committee, we heard from a number of experts, including charities, doctors and other people working with young people and offenders, and they said that the way that the secure colleges had been set up as large institutions was completely unsuitable for young people.

Andrew Selous: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. I understand the concerns that she raises. Is she aware of how the secure college is designed? We will, for example, have 12-bed units for the more vulnerable groups, which could include girls and children under 15. There are 20-bed and 10-bed units. We believe that it will be possible to offer that proper support. The set-up will allow smaller groups of young people to foster that sense of community, belonging and close relationship with those that will be looked after.

Julie Hilling: rose—

Andrew Selous: I will just finish this point and then I will let the hon. Lady in, not least because her mother is one of my constituents. There will be no occasion in which all 300 or so young people will be milling around together in any part of the secure college. I hope that that allays the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Julie Hilling: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Nobody involved in rehabilitation or education has said that this is a good idea. The Minister did not quite answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about whether the teaching staff will be qualified teachers. Moreover, what sort of ratio of children to teachers does he expect in that learning environment?

Andrew Selous: As I think the hon. Lady knows, we will be running a competition, and we will be looking for innovation and creativity from providers. We will assess the bids very rigorously on the basis of the best quality of education, so we are a little way off from being specific on that at the moment. The hon. Lady will have heard me say very clearly that this is an institution that will have education at its core, and that we would not be doing this if we were not absolutely determined to do better than is currently done on the education front.
	Now, if colleagues will allow me, I will make a little progress. Both measures will ensure that girls, and boys aged under 15, receive the tailored support that they need in secure colleges. Throughout the passage of the Bill, and indeed the development of our plans for the
	secure college pathfinder, we have actively engaged with interested Parliamentarians in both Houses and wider stakeholders and experts, including both NHS England and the Department for Education. In the light of the feedback that we have received from peers, we have made changes to the plans to enlarge the site of the pathfinder by two acres to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable groups have sports and recreational facilities near to their accommodation, and that there is greater separation between the larger and smaller units on the site. I am therefore satisfied that the secure college pathfinder would be able to deliver a distinct regime that caters for the specific needs of girls and under-15s while always keeping them safe.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being very generous. We all hope that everything works out as he anticipates. What assurances can he give us that the contract that would be signed would be such that if there were a decision not to go ahead with extensions, the taxpayer would not be financially penalised?

Andrew Selous: I am not sure whether the contract would specifically relate to the number and type of young people who were on the site, so I think that those would be separate issues. However, there is a strong argument for not discriminating against girls and young people. As a father of three daughters, I would not want to think that we were in any way discriminating against girls. That is an important principle.
	I should stress that although the other place has proposed amendment 74, the Government have been clear that no final decisions have been taken on who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder. That will be determined in the light of analysis of the make-up of the youth custodial population ahead of the pathfinder opening in 2017. We have also given our commitment that girls and under-15s will not be placed in the pathfinder from its opening, and that any decision to introduce them would be carefully phased.
	I hope that Members will agree that girls and under-15s should not be prevented from benefiting from the enhanced opportunities and facilities provided by secure colleges. Members should acknowledge the careful consideration that we have given to these matters, and the efforts we have made to ensure that girls and under-15s could be accommodated safely in the secure college pathfinder. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords Amendment 74.
	Lords amendments 127 to 130 are minor Government amendments consequential to earlier amendments made by this House to extend the secure college provisions to Wales. Those amendments were necessary to ensure that principals of secure colleges were treated under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 in the same way as those in charge of other types of custodial establishment.
	The purpose of amendments 127 to 130 is to ensure that the Welsh language text of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) 2014 Act is consistent with the English language text of the 2014 Act as amended by Schedule 5. That is necessary because the two instruments are legally separate. I can assure the House that the effect of the amendments is unchanged from the English version seen earlier, and I ask Members to agree to Lords Amendments 127 to 130.
	Lords amendment 131 concerns the process for approving secure college rules. In its third report of the session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that if the Bill is to enable secure college rules to authorise the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline, those rules should, to the extent that they authorise the use of force, be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government were pleased to accept that recommendation on Report in the Lords and consequently ask the House to support this amendment.
	As the first set of secure college rules will contain provisions authorising the use of force, an effect of this amendment would be to make the entire first set of rules subject to the affirmative procedure. That will give Parliament additional oversight of the first set of secure college rules. The Government’s consultation on their plans for secure college rules closed on 27 November. We are considering the responses that we received. I urge Members to agree to Lords amendment 131.

Dan Jarvis: I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with the other place, and in favour of Lords amendment 74. I give notice of our intention to vote against the Government’s motion tonight.
	This debate is about sparing girls and young children—the most vulnerable offenders—from a flawed, expensive and potentially dangerous institution, with which the Government should not be going ahead. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and will respond to some of his specific points in a moment, but would not the Government’s proposal for secure colleges be a step in the wrong direction for our youth justice system? It is a plan without any real supporting evidence.
	Even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that their plans are untried and untested and the Government have not been able to produce a single independent expert to vote for the proposal. The NSPCC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and nearly 30 other leading children’s charities have publicly condemned the plans as “expensive and dangerous”.
	Let me be clear: improvements need to be made to youth custody. Reoffending is still too high and education can and should play an important role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, so I welcome the efforts that Ministers are making to improve the delivery of education in young offenders institutions where it is not good enough. At a time when the youth custody population is falling, however, Labour does not think that construction of a new type of prison is the correct way to proceed.

Yasmin Qureshi: Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of rehabilitation is being able to keep in contact with family and close ones? It is proposed that this college will be in Lincolnshire and there will be only one in the whole country, so my hon. Friend can imagine the travelling that the parents of the children will have to do to visit. That completely defeats the object of rehabilitation.

Dan Jarvis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence explains that small units that are closer to home with a higher staff ratio are more suitable, particularly for girls and young offenders who have complex needs.
	Let me respond now to some of the Minister’s points about the accommodation of girls and young children. We know that girls and children under the age of 15 are
	overwhelmingly in the minority in the youth custody population. In 2012-13, 95% of children in custody were boys and 96% were aged between 15 and 17. If those ratios were reflected in the 320-bed secure college, the Government would be accommodating fewer than 20 girls and about a dozen younger children together with nearly 300 older and troubled teenage boys. That has all the makings of an incredibly intimidating environment with real safeguarding concerns for the most vulnerable offenders and it is why large facilities such as young offenders institutions only accommodate boys over the age of 15. It also helps explain why, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), all the evidence shows that small units closer to home with a higher staff ratio are most suitable for girls and young offenders with complex needs. Ignoring the evidence in deciding the composition of the secure college would create a near impossible task for the college principal as the regime would inevitably need to be designed to cater for the needs of the majority, making it all the more likely that the needs of the minority would slip through the cracks.
	The problem is compounded by the fact that Ministers have not carried out an equality impact assessment on how girls and younger offenders would fare in a secure college. That was confirmed in a written parliamentary answer to me on 16 June and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. The Committee’s report on the scrutiny of the Bill stated:
	“We note that the Government does not appear to have carried out any equality impact assessments of the proposed secure colleges policy, and we recommend that such assessments should be carried out and made available to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
	I remind the Minister of his Department’s response to the Committee’s report. It claimed:
	“We believe that the pathfinder Secure College, an establishment”
	comprising
	“distinct accommodation units and capable of supporting different regimes for the various groups of young offenders, will provide…an individualised service.”
	My simple question for the Minister is as follows: how? How will those warm words be delivered in reality? The House has been given no credible information about what life inside a secure college would be like for those young people.
	We know that young people in custody have complex needs: mental health issues, learning disabilities, drugs, alcohol and problems of domestic abuse and family breakdown. However, the Government have proposed no credible plan for how the secure college would cater to those needs. They have not explained how they will be able to deliver better results at a cheaper cost than has been possible in other youth custody environments or how they would do so when the average time young offenders spend in custody is only 79 days.
	Right hon. and hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let me remind the Minister of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:
	“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”
	The most obvious example of that is the secure college rules.
	The rules are crucial. They will not only determine the regime delivered in the secure college but dictate important issues such as the reasonable use of force. The Minister knows that there has been a chorus of concern about that and that the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others have warned that the Bill might even be unlawful as it is drafted. The Opposition do not think that it is sensible to place the most vulnerable offenders in an institution with such question marks about the reasonable use of force. We do not think that that is a good way to legislate.
	The Minister also talked about plans to house girls and the youngest offenders in distinct accommodation units, which makes the design of the secure college very important. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to look at the proposed plans for the secure college, as it does not take an architect's eye to see that this is not “a school with a fence around it”, as the Secretary of State has described it. The plans are all but identical to the plans for a young offenders institution to be built on the very same site that the Government cancelled earlier in the Parliament. Although there might be plans for distinct accommodation in the secure college, the Bill contains no requirements for separate facilities in any future secure colleges.

Yasmin Qureshi: Effectively, the secure colleges are the old-style Borstals, and everybody knew that they did not work.

Dan Jarvis: Indeed. One of the fundamental problems is that there is no credible evidence to support the proposal and no independent experts who are prepared to put their names to it.
	Let me ask the Minister for a number of guarantees. If separate facilities are his solution to the issue, why are they not provided for in the Bill? Even if they were, fencing off girls and the youngest offenders is not the answer. It is likely that they would still be in the minority in the separate areas and they would also be cut off from the facilities on the main site for most of the time. There would also still be times when girls and children as young as 12 would need to be moved and escorted across the main site. That would be a recipe for intimidation and it is precisely why youth custody has moved away from accommodating different age groups on the same site. Such sites are more difficult to run and mean that children have to spend more time locked up and fenced off for their own protection, hindering any hope of rehabilitation.
	Let me finish by putting it on the record that if we are elected in five months’ time, the next Labour Government will not wish to go ahead with this poorly thought through proposal. The Government have said that they want to cut the cost of youth custody, but wasting £85 million of public money on a vanity project that will do little to rehabilitate young people is no saving at all. Last week, Leicester city council refused a planning application that looks likely to delay the project. Will the Minister say when he expects construction to start and whether the final contract will be signed before the election?
	Anyone and everyone who has scrutinised the secure college proposal has seen it for what it is: an ill thought through cost-cutting exercise with a veil of education
	draped over it. Throwing girls and the youngest children into the mix would be an accident waiting to happen. The other place has had the wisdom and common sense to say so and this House should agree with them.

Sarah Champion: The Minister is aware that I am strongly against the creation of his secure college. Of all the witnesses we saw in Committee, not one was in favour of creating this prison for children. Indeed, most considered it a joke as it goes against the evidence and recommendations on rehabilitating vulnerable young children. The Government’s proposal for a secure college will introduce a new and dangerous kind of child custody. The Government plan to detain girls and boys aged between 12 and 17 in a 320-bed prison.
	There is no doubt in my mind that if these plans go ahead, younger children will be extremely vulnerable. It is inevitable that they will experience higher levels of intimidation by older children and that their needs will be relegated because of a focus on the majority. Evidence shows that girls and younger children are likely to withdraw by refusing to engage in educational programmes or other activities in that environment, which completely counters the professed reason for creating this prison. There has been no impact assessment, so it is impossible to comprehend the implications for those groups.
	Currently, young offender institutions only hold boys over 15 because it is recognised that larger institutions are unsuitable for younger children and girls. Girls and under-15s are currently held in secure training centres or secure children’s homes, which are smaller and have a higher staff-to-child ratio. Why cannot that tried and tested model be allowed to continue?
	The reality of the secure college is that girls and younger children will still be sharing the same resources. Yes, they may have segregated use, but they will still see, hear and be intimidated by older boys. The vast majority of girls in the penal system have a history of sexual abuse. Imagine what it will be like for them in a testosterone-fuelled environment of boys trying to out-macho each other for fear of appearing weak. The Minister said that he has daughters so I am sure he can imagine how it will be for those girls when they try to sleep at night. How will they move on from the horrors that plagued their earlier lives or be able to develop as individuals when they are outnumbered by 19 to one?
	The idea of a giant prison for children is a bad one. We have excellent youth offending schemes that have very positive results in rehabilitating young people. However, I have been in Parliament long enough to know that once the Government have decided on something, they plough on regardless. I beg the Minister to do the right thing and allow Lords amendment 74 to stand.

Julie Hilling: The notion of a secure college is flawed. Nobody except Ministers thinks it is a good idea—no educationalist, nobody who works in young offender institutions, nobody who works in the criminal justice system and nobody who campaigns for improvements in the way we treat children and young people in the criminal justice system. It seems to be based on a notion that going off to boarding school is a good thing, but this is not going to be like Eton. It will bring together large numbers of young people from very disturbed backgrounds who have committed serious offences. That is not a good idea.
	Let us think about many of the young people who are in custody. Many have spent time in care and are likely to have had an absent parent. They have probably experienced neglect or abuse, and the prevalence of mental illness is high. Some 86% of young people in the criminal justice system have been excluded from school, 23% have learning difficulties and 36% have borderline learning difficulties. Boys aged 15 to 17 in prison are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than children of the same age in the community, and 11% of children in prison have attempted suicide. Simply trying to put knowledge into these young people without addressing their fundamental issues is doomed to failure. Young people need to be in the right place psychologically before they can start to learn. Simply trying to shove knowledge into young people who are disturbed, who have come from bad backgrounds and whose mental health is rubbish will not work; they need to be in the right place if they are to learn.
	The average length of time spent in custody is 79 days, so how are those young people really going to learn a great deal in that period? The Minister talked about young people learning to read in a short period of time. There might be some successes in basic literacy and numeracy, but I do not see how it can work for their wider education process. We will be putting them in a college many miles away from home and the other support services they will need after their time in custody. They will then, after 79 days, have to reintegrate into their old school, or into a new school, and into those support services, which will not be on the doorstep to help them with their drug problems, mental health problems or all the other issues that young people face.
	In Committee it was indicated to us that the teaching staff will not necessarily be qualified teachers. We are not sure about that, because the Minister will not tell us. The Government cannot just say that they will leave it until they have had a competition for people to apply to run the institution. Surely to goodness they need to lay down some firm guidelines on the qualifications and experience that those who will be working with the young people should have.
	Why on earth will the Government not look at models that actually work? They should look to Scandinavia, where learning environments are in the community, where people down the street will not even know that the house on the corner is a youth custody premises, and where young people are treated holistically so that not just their education is dealt with, but all the other problems that have lead them to offend and have messed up their lives. They need that whole range of support services. We need that sort of therapeutic community, not a place where 320 young people will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, vie for attention and to prove who is the most macho.
	I do not believe that a secure college is a place for 15 to 17-year-olds, but it is very definitely not a place for girls and younger children, who should be in the community. The therapeutic programmes that work for young people are those that are close to the community and that are small and specific. As my hon. Friend said, so many of the young women who end up in the penal system have suffered sexual abuse and other forms of physical abuse. The Government should rule out ever
	putting them in a place with 320 young boys, which would make the experience awful for them.
	I do not believe that we will change reoffending by locking up 320 young people together. I do not believe that we will change educational outcomes for those young people by doing that. I really wish that the Government would accept the Lords amendment, but I also wish that they would reconsider the whole proposal. If nobody thinks that it is going to work, why are the Government arrogant enough to believe that it will? Surely they should start listening to the professionals, to those who work with young people and understand them, and not go ahead with the college, and they should certainly never contemplate putting young children and women into that place.

Andrew Selous: I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to improving outcomes for young people in custody. As I said, 68% of young people reoffend within a year of leaving custody, at an average cost of £100,000 a year to the taxpayer. We simply cannot be satisfied with the status quo and need to try something new. Education needs to be at the heart of the offer we put in front of those young people, and so does health.
	We have engaged with parliamentarians, stakeholders, practitioners, experts and young offenders themselves on our plans and, in response to Parliament’s concerns, have amended the Bill to ensure that secure college rules are subject to the affirmative procedure to the extent that they authorise the use of force. We want to continue that dialogue as we implement our vision for secure colleges.
	I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that our vision is to have, rather than just a prison with some education in it, a building that is designed as a school—the plans have changed considerably since the first version. We do not think that it is right to educate those young people somewhere with bars on the windows; we think they deserve a better environment in which to learn. The published plans have changed hugely and, as I have said, there will be a considerable health offer within the establishment. Girls are already taught and looked after alongside boys in secure training colleges and children’s homes. We do not expect a delay. Blaby district council supported the proposals unanimously and the local further education college is very supportive of what we are doing.
	On the equality impact statement, in according with the Ministry of Justice’s duties under the Equality Act 2010, we considered the impact of the proposals set out in the Government response to the transforming youth custody consultation in January 2014. That was made clear in the parliamentary question, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, on 16 June. I say to the other Members who spoke from the Opposition Benches that girls are already in youth custody, in secure training centres and in secure children’s homes, and many are sentenced there for a considerable time. We have a duty to give them a better offer. What we do at the moment is simply not good enough, and it costs us a huge amount of money. A Government with ambition are right to try to do the best for those young people.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 194.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 74 disagreed to.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
	Lords amendments 127 to 131 agreed to.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Specified offences

Andrew Selous: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143.

Andrew Selous: We have heard today passionate arguments from all parts of the House on parts 2 and 4 of the Bill on secure colleges and judicial review. The Government amendments made to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill in the House of Lords have significantly enhanced it. I do not intend to explain every amendment at great length, but I will touch on some.
	Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 117, 126 and 142 introduce important changes to the law by creating a new criminal offence that specifically targets the behaviour commonly referred to as revenge pornography. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this behaviour is intolerable.

Julian Huppert: As the Minister says, this is a very important issue, and I raised it when the Bill was here before it went to the other place. It is very good to have this criminal sanction, but does he agree that it will be effective only if it is matched by education so that it is not necessary because people simply do not do these things?

Andrew Selous: I pay tribute to the part that the hon. Gentleman played in earlier debates on this issue. He is of course right: the law can go so far, but people need to be educated, and that is absolutely part of what we need to do to stamp out this despicable practice.
	The malicious disclosure of intimate sexual photographs and films is undoubtedly an extremely distressing experience for victims. Most are left distraught, not only by the disclosure of images that they once thought were private and personal, but by the breach of trust perpetrated by this abhorrent offence. Careers and subsequent relationships have often been ruined as a result.
	The offence will apply to disclosure of private sexual photographs or films of people, such as those of them engaged in sexual activity or depicted in a sexual way, where what is shown is not the kind of thing that would ordinarily be seen in public. To constitute an offence, the disclosure must take place without the consent of at least one person featured in the image and with the motivation of causing that person distress. The offence could potentially apply to any individuals in a range of circumstances, although a common scenario would be one in which an individual posts sexually explicit photographs of an ex-partner on the internet without their consent and with intent to cause them distress. It will be punishable with a maximum custodial sentence of two years.
	The amendment before the House is the result of much detailed consideration and discussion and is carefully constructed to target the specific behaviour in question. I believe this offence will provide an important means of redress for victims of this cruel behaviour, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for their excellent work in bringing this to the Government’s attention.
	We have also, through Lords amendment 73, made changes to the offence of grooming under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This amendment reduces the number of occasions on which the defendant must initially meet or communicate with the child, so that one single meeting or communication will suffice. The Government are, once again, grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for passionately arguing the cause for this change.
	We have built on the amendments to the Malicious Communications Act 1988 made in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), by increasing through Lords amendment 82 the time within which prosecutions for offences under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 can be brought.
	We have taken considerable steps towards protecting victims and witnesses under the age of 18 by introducing more effective youth reporting restrictions. Lords amendments 92 to 94, 112, 114 and 141 provide the criminal courts with a new statutory discretionary power to order lifetime reporting restrictions in respect of a victim or witness involved in criminal proceedings who is under the age of 18 at the time those proceedings commence, and whose quality of evidence or level of co-operation may be affected by their fear of being identified by members of the public as a person concerned in the proceedings. This replicates the current situation for adult witnesses in appropriate circumstances who are already afforded lifetime protection.
	The Government were pleased to accept Lords amendment 75 tabled by the Earl of Listowel to change the law on how 17-year-olds are treated when held overnight post-charge and pre-court appearance in police custody. As with children aged 12 to 16, they will be transferred to suitable local authority accommodation for overnight detention, rather than spending a night in police cells.
	I draw the attention of the House to Lords amendments 5 to 35 and 121 to 123, which introduce new powers that enable the Secretary of State to appoint recall adjudicators. Recall adjudicators will take on the functions relating to the release of recalled determinate sentence prisoners that are currently performed by the Parole Board. These amendments will allow the board to focus its resources where they are most needed—on conducting hearings for indeterminate sentence prisoners. The details of how the recall adjudicator model will operate in practice will be the subject of further development, but Members might find it reassuring to know that my noble Friend Lord Faulks made a commitment in the other place that the Government would lay a report before both Houses before the new system is brought into force.
	We have made other positive changes to the Bill through Lords amendments 1 to 4, 36 to 47, 83 to 85, 88 to 91, 113 to 115, 124 and 140. These include minor amendments to some of the existing provisions in the Bill, such as on the offence of police misconduct. They also add new provisions, such as banning the offer of inducements to make personal injury claims, and introducing greater flexibility in the Court of Protection by re-routing appeals away from the Court of Appeal, which will reduce the burden on its work load.
	The Government tabled an amendment that will allow the UK to give effect to a proposed new bilateral treaty between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, which will
	permit mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the two states, flowing from the EU 2014 opt-out decision. The Government accepted non-Government Lords amendments 48 to 67 and 124 in the other place, which have the effect of aligning the offence of possessing an offensive weapon with the wider sentencing framework.
	I urge the House to support the Government in agreeing with the Lords amendments in this group.

Andy Slaughter: Even by the Government’s standards, making 140 amendments in the other place, ranging from new offences and procedures to a plethora of corrections to drafting and operational errors, is remarkable. In the end, most of the matters are uncontentious or the Government have had notice of our objections in terms, so I can be succinct. We do not intend to press any of the Lords amendments in this group to the vote.
	However, some issues require considerably more explanation and reassurance, not least the new role of the recall adjudicator. We welcome the fact that Ministers have recognised the additional burdens placed on the Parole Board. Labour has made that point repeatedly during the Bill’s passage. The Government’s impact assessment accepts that the Bill will create at least 1,100 extra Parole Board hearings at a time when its work load is rising and its staff numbers are falling. Nearly one in five staff has been cut since the last election, many of whom were vital supports to the 232 Parole Board members, who are paid per hearing. The staff left in place have to clear a substantial backlog of outstanding cases, while recent Supreme Court judgments have also impacted on its case load. With that in mind, we do not oppose the Government’s efforts to redress the burdens on the Parole Board in principle, but we need assurances on several points.
	Introducing the provisions in the other place, the Minister accepted that
	“the Bill is silent on the precise workings of the recall adjudicator”,
	and that there is
	“a great deal of further work to be done on the detail.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 14-15.]
	Yet Ministers seem determined to rush through the changes with many questions left unanswered.
	The Bill currently does not make it clear who the recall adjudicator would be, what the nature and scope of their role would be limited to, how the appointment process would work, what the costs of the new system would be, or how adjudicators would co-operate with other criminal justice agencies to ensure a fair, robust and effective system of recall. It is not clear what experience, training or expertise would be required of recall adjudicators.
	So far, the Government have gone only as far as saying that they intend the positions to be filled by people with “significant criminal justice experience”. The point is best summarised by their impact assessment:
	“Recall adjudicators will need to be carefully selected and trained and provided with a clear process and guidance to mitigate the risk of their release decisions either being too risk averse, which would add to the pressure on prison places, or failing to take full account of relevant risk factors, which could lead to the release of prisoners who breach their licence conditions and/or re-offend. This would have adverse consequences on the system as well as incur reputational damage to the MOJ.”
	Such “reputational damage” to the Ministry of Justice means a risk to the public that decisions are wrongly taken. Can the Minister give the House any further detail on that point? The Government confirmed in the other place that they had
	“certainly not ruled out the possibility of using magistrates.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 15.]
	That has raised particular concerns, because magistrates have varying levels of experience and, as adjudicators, would be dealing with prisoners on sentences over and above their usual sentencing powers.
	Furthermore, there has been no formal process of consultation on the adjudicator proposals, despite the significant changes that they would mean to the scope and function of the Parole Board. The Government committed themselves in the other place to present further reports to Parliament before this policy is taken any further. Will the Minister confirm what these reports will contain, when he expects them to be laid before Parliament and whether any further consultation will be carried out in the meantime?
	The Government have failed to carry out an equality impact assessment on the introduction of adjudicators. Will the Minister explain why? This is perhaps the most crucial point. Until we know what proportion of those who are subject to recall have protected characteristics—I include in that young people, elderly people, people with a physical disability, those who suffer from a mental illness and those with other protected characteristics—and until we know whether those who will undertake the job are qualified to deal with those characteristics, we will not know whether the new system is fit for purpose.
	Ministers have cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston to show that the creation of a recall adjudicator will not be incompatible with human rights obligations. However, Justice has suggested that
	“the case does not provide a full proof justification for the new position, as compared with the independent and suitably qualified Parole Board.”
	Can the Minister offer the House any specific assurances on that point?
	Finally on this matter, what assurance can the Minister give that the new system will be as robust as the current process? Risk assessing whether prisoners can be released back into the community is a complex judgment and the Parole Board has more than 40 years’ experience in it. Reducing administrative burdens is all well and good, but the cost of it must not be to cut corners and jeopardise public safety.
	I welcome the Lords amendments that clarify the sentencing for driving and knife offences, as well as the new offences of police corruption and ill treatment or wilful neglect by care providers. The last of those was recommended by the Francis report. Although the Opposition are disappointed that the Government are not implementing Robert Francis’s recommendations in full, we are pleased that they are implementing his recommendations in this instance.
	Those changes highlight the fact that this is a rather different Bill from the one that was first presented to the House earlier this year. The Government’s initial impact assessment confirmed that the measures in the Bill would create nearly 1,000 additional prison places. Since then, the Government have added several new offences to the Bill, many of them tabled just days before a
	debate in Parliament, with no specific impact assessment, and rushed through with limited opportunity for proper scrutiny. That is not a proper way to legislate. At the same time, our prisons have lurched further into crisis, with overcrowding and violence spiralling. Now that the Bill is back in the Commons, will the Minister give us the updated number of prison places it will require and where they will be provided?
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her proposals that became Lords amendments 73 and 143, which tackle child exploitation. She has championed those changes since the Bill’s Committee stage in the Commons. It is testimony to the campaign that she has run and to the parliamentary inquiry she led alongside Barnardo’s that the Government have accepted her amendments and included them in the Bill. I also welcome Lords amendments 70 and 71, which relate to the creation of a new offence to tackle the increasing problem of so-called revenge porn.
	The Lords amendments that relate to personal injury and fundamental dishonesty are very flawed. They will require a court to dismiss in its entirety any personal injury claim when it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it would cause substantial injustice to the claimant so to do. Last Wednesday, I spoke at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ autumn conference, where I heard the concern that, once again, the Government are stacking the deck in favour of defendant insurers. On these proposals, APIL commented that
	“there is no provision in this clause for the defence to be dismissed. The rule of law demands a level playing field”.
	It stated that the clause
	“tilts that playing field firmly in favour of defendants and their insurers who pay compensation to injured people.”
	It might be more appropriate to have a criminal standard of proof when questions of fundamental dishonesty are at issue.
	There are minor changes on the new sentencing scheme for serious offences and to allow the President of the Supreme Court to report to Parliament on matters that concern that Court and its jurisdictions—those, we approve. There is also a large number of technical amendments. As I said, those are uncontentious.
	The Bill has been going through the two Houses for almost a year and there are some things that we welcome either for technical or policy reasons, but there are a number of issues, which we debated earlier this evening, on which we are fundamentally at odds with the Government, principally in relation to secure colleges and judicial review. Any impartial observer would say that whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill, the way it has been presented has been somewhat chaotic. It is not good practice to begin with a moderately sized Bill and have to pack it with additional amendments throughout Committee, Report and Third Reading in both Houses, and on that basis it is perhaps not surprising that the other place has found so much to criticise.

Maria Miller: Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 118, 126 and 142 will make posting revenge porn a criminal offence, and I rise to support them.
	I have been campaigning on behalf of women who have contacted me to get a change in the law to make posting revenge pornography a crime, and today we have a chance to make a change that will literally transform the future for many people in our country. Nude or sexually explicit images taken as part of a private relationship and that were always intended to be private, should stay private. People should expect better treatment under the law, and the amendments would ensure that that is the case in future.
	The seemingly growing industry of revenge pornography, where images are posted for all to see, is completely unacceptable in our country and the law must reflect that. The current mishmash of legislation does not provide adequate protection. The posting of such images is often a one-off and therefore not subject to harassment legislation, or an image could be deemed not to be grossly offensive and therefore not subject to the Communications Act 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act 1988. There is therefore need for a new law, and the Bill provides that opportunity.
	I pay tribute to the Crown Prosecution Service which has attempted to provide better guidance in this area. However, as the police made clear in evidence sessions on revenge pornography with the Lords Bill Committee held during the summer, it is not necessarily against the law to post such pictures online. The amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will close that loophole and provide comfort to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of men and women in this country who have had nude or sexually explicit images of them posted without their permission.
	The law must keep up to date with the ever-evolving changes and challenges thrown down to us by the internet and digital technology. What is illegal offline is illegal online, but the impact of having a nude or sexually explicit image posted on the internet for thousands or even millions of people to see is entirely different from the impact of a similar image being distributed offline, and I believe that the law should reflect that. We need the law to keep pace with the internet, and I commend the Minister for listening to the arguments and being prepared to take action.
	There are those who have said that a new law is not needed. Some have gone so far as to say to me that if a woman has a nude or sexually explicit photo taken in private, she has no right to expect protection under the law if that image is made public without her permission; that in some ways it is as if she was “asking for it”. I completely reject that argument as, I hope, will every Member of the House. The law needs to protect men and women and to send a clear message to the perpetrators of these heinous acts that their actions are not tolerated by this society or in criminal law.
	I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Trish Morris and Elizabeth Berridge in the other place for working with me, and for making the case so powerfully and so successfully to enable us to debate these amendments today. I also pay tribute to Women’s Aid, the Safer Internet Centre, Ban Revenge Porn, and many others who have written to me in support of the amendments over the past six months. I thank the ministerial team and their officials for listening to the arguments and for acting, and I urge Members across the House to support the amendments.
	If images are posted online, victims want them to be taken down quickly. Protocols put in place by internet service providers and social media in relation to child abuse images prove beyond doubt that the industry can, through its own actions, come together to remove illegal images effectively and swiftly. Good progress on child abuse has been made by the industry, working with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and other law enforcement agencies. The Minister perhaps needs to look at that work as a template for the sort of action the industry needs to take on the issue of revenge pornography. We need an industry-wide code of practice for removing revenge pornography to ensure that people have certainty that action will be taken.
	The incidence of sexting among under-18s is now put as high as 20%, so the volume of potential revenge porn images in the future is alarming. Indeed, one in five reports from industry received by CEOP relates to self-generated indecent images of people under the age of 18. What will the Government do to put a stop to the already illegal practice of sending nude images of under-18s through mobile phones and then uploading them on to websites? This seems to be becoming increasingly accepted as part of society today, but it should not be. It is illegal and the Government need to act to stop this ticking time bomb of images that could haunt the next generation of people into adulthood.
	Victims want help. They want an industry-wide reporting regime. They want help to be available. The Safer Internet Centre, which was established to support professionals who work with children, is now receiving calls from adults affected by revenge pornography, as they have nowhere else to turn to. In September, I met the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the industry board that looks at these issues. I set out my concerns and asked the industry to take action. I asked for there to be an industry-standard reporting mechanism, an industry-standard response time for taking down illegal images of adults and support for victims through a helpline. This sort of industry-wide approach is what we should all expect from a mature multinational sector of our economy. We should not expect the burden of removing illegal images from commercial websites to be solely the responsibility of the police—the industry has an obligation to act too. If websites are hosted in more obscure countries, splash pages should be used to block illegal pornography images from being viewed in the UK in exactly the same way as they have been used to block child abuse images. It is a tried and tested methodology that can address this problem. I look forward to the Minister confirming today how he can handle the logistics in the future, working of course with other ministerial colleagues in other Departments.
	I applaud the Government for acting when some were resistant. The Ministers have shown foresight and their actions will be warmly welcomed by those who have had to endure the appalling consequences of revenge pornography being posted online without their consent. On behalf of all those women—and the men affected, too—who have contacted me, I thank the Ministers for their work. I hope that in their response today they are able to provide some reassurance on the questions I have posed.

Julian Huppert: I, too, would like to speak to amendment 70. I will not detain the House for too long, as some of the points have already been raised. I called for this amendment
	when the Bill was going through this House and in the Queen’s Speech. It was very helpful after that to get the support of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) in her Westminster Hall debate.
	There is a gap in the law that we are closing. It is surprising that, while there are many laws that touch on the issue of revenge porn, none of them quite tackles the essential issue. People were being harmed and a clear wrong was being done, but nothing could be done because there was a hole in the law. I am therefore delighted that the Government accepted the case. There has been substantial debate in the other place and I pay particular tribute to my colleagues, Baroness Grender, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Barker and Lord Marks, who tabled amendments in the other place. Between us, we have managed to get the Government to work out the amendments.
	I pay tribute to the victims. I have spoken to many of them, but in particular I pay tribute to Hannah Thompson who has played a very key role in speaking out publicly. That was a very brave thing to do about something that feels very shaming. We should remember her work and pay tribute to her. She will protect many people in the future. The psychological trauma can be huge, as the right hon. Lady has already said. We have seen people face the shame—the sense they did something wrong—when it was someone else who behaved badly. People have lost confidence, they have lost their jobs and, in some cases around the world, they have committed suicide. I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to make this a new offence. It is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a message that revenge porn should not be tolerated and people should not be able to share these intimate images, entrusted to them, and expect their actions to be completely unpunishable.
	That will not be enough, however. Although the right hon. Lady spoke about automatic processes to filter these things out, there will be challenges. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its champions—on child abuse images is fantastic, but it cannot be directly mapped on to images of revenge porn, because the images themselves are not the issue; it is about intent and consent. It is hard to distinguish automatically between an image shared voluntarily, which we should not be criminalising if the person is over 18, and an image shared involuntarily, which is the issue that the amendment would tackle. It is not as easy as in the case of child abuse images—not that that is trivial or easy either.

Maria Miller: For clarification, I was clearly pointing out that once an image had been identified as illegal, the same technology could be used to remove it from the internet. Obviously, this is about data-matching the images.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about there being scope for data-matching images, and there is some nice work being done on technologies for hashing an image so that it can be identified, but it will be harder than in the case of child abuse images.
	As I said in an intervention on the Minister, we need a substantial improvement in education not just around this offence—ideally we want a situation where no one is ever prosecuted under the offence because the message has been sent so clearly that people simply do not share
	intimate images of former partners or whomever—but on the much broader issue of sex and relationships education. For me, this is fundamentally an issue not about revenge or pornography—the term “revenge porn” is not ideal—but about consent. We need a system where, particularly through education, we get people to understand what consent is about: what can be agreed to and what cannot be agreed. Whether it is sexual assault and physical violence, emotional assault or the taking and spreading of such images, it should be about whether consent has been given. That is the education I would like to see. The Government should have compulsory sex and relationships education for everybody at school to tackle these issues of consent, and they should do what they can to ensure society changes so that we have that focus on consent. I welcome the amendments very much, and I am grateful the Government have agreed to them.
	Very quickly, amendment 73 was led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who did a fantastic job. I had the privilege of co-sponsoring the amendments, but she did the work, and I am not in any sense trying to claim credit. The amendment will make a big difference to grooming. Her approach to the amendments—working constructively with Ministers, discussing the issues, not trying to play party politics, but making the case sensibly and pragmatically—has delivered her success, and she should be very proud of getting the law changed to protect young people. Perhaps there is a lesson there for other right hon. and hon. Members about how to get the law changed.

Andrew Selous: I thank all Members who have contributed to this wide-ranging and considered debate; the number of points raised confirms the importance of the amendments we have made during the Bill’s passage. As I set out, the Bill represents the next stage of our reforms to deliver a cost-effective system in which the public can have real confidence. The amendments in the other place have advanced and improved the Bill, and I thank its Members for their continued scrutiny.
	Hon. Members have raised several issues that I shall address as best I can in the time left. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) touched on the issue of recall adjudicators. He will be aware that the Government decided to legislate now because of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston, which was handed down on 2 July and so only recently opened the door to an alternative mechanism that does not require determinate sentence recall cases to be reviewed by a court-like body. I am of course conscious that the change has been brought forward at a late stage in the Bill’s progress, but it was necessary for us to use the opportunity that the Whiston judgment has afforded us.
	As I said earlier, once the details of the new recall adjudicator model have been fully worked up, it will be possible to say more about how it will operate and what the expected costs and benefits will be compared with the current system. We will need to work closely with the Parole Board and others to ensure that any new system achieves what is intended. I will be happy to share further information with Parliament as and when it is
	available. There will also be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the procedural rules produced by the Secretary of State, which will set out the procedures that recall adjudicators will be required to follow.
	Individual policy impact assessments have been published where the amendments made to the Bill in the other place would lead to an impact of £5 million a year or more on the public sector. These include impact assessments for recall adjudicators and provisions that prohibit the offering of inducements. On the equality impact assessment, we did indeed consider the impact of the proposals ahead of the introduction of the relevant clauses, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s duties under the Equality Act 2010.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked about the impact of the Bill on prison places. I can tell him that the Government are committed always to have enough prison places to allow us to provide capacity for those sent to us by the courts, and we have indeed considered the impacts carefully.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) spoke powerfully about the part that she and others have played in bringing the issue of revenge pornography to the House. I want to put on record my gratitude to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for what they have done to persuade the Government to take action on this issue. Parliament needs to be relevant. It needs to deal with the issues presented to us, and this is a good example of Parliament and the Government doing exactly that. I listened carefully to the important point she made about the data matching of images, which is one that the Government will certainly bear in mind.
	My right hon. Friend is also completely right about the social media and internet industry playing its part to deal with the terrible crime of revenge pornography. We cannot just expect the law to provide the complete solution; we need everyone to play their part. We need education and we need the industry to do its part as well.

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the industry to take action and put in place a code of practice to ensure that those affected by this dreadful crime know where to go, who to report the offence to and how long it will be before the images are taken down? People want certainty; they do not want the uncertainty that currently prevails.

Andrew Selous: Yet again, my right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. I agree with the challenge she has put to the industry. She is right to do that and I hope it will pay attention to the debate in this House. I am with her in the demands that she has quite properly placed on the industry in expecting it to fulfil its proper social responsibility in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about the important role that victims have played, and I think he did the House a service by putting on record the role that victims have played in describing the terrible ordeal that they have been through. That has certainly helped inform our debate.
	These amendments address a number of issues that have been brought to our attention by Members in the other place as well as those brought forward by the Government. I firmly believe that they enhance and improve the Bill, and I am proud to say that we are tackling the
	appalling behaviour known as revenge pornography, which has featured considerably in tonight’s debate. We are also addressing an important lacuna in the reporting restriction framework and introducing recall adjudicators to go some way to alleviate the pressure on the Parole Board. These and other measures are not only critical, but absolutely necessary. I urge the House to support them.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124
	Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments.
	That Dr Julian Huppert, Andrew Selous, Mr Andy Slaughter, Karl Turner, Mr Ben Wallace be members of the Committee;
	That Andrew Selous be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ordered,
	That Mr Jeremy Browne be discharged from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and Duncan Hames be added.—(Damian Hinds.)

COMMITTEES

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 6 together.
	Ordered,

Administration

That Harriet Baldwin and Mr Mark Harper be discharged from the Administration Committee and Michael Fabricant and Mr Ben Wallace be added.

Science and Technology

That Dan Byles be a member of the Science and Technology Committee.

Transport

That Mr Tom Harris be a member of the Transport Committee.—(John Penrose, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

FIFA WORLD CUP BIDS (SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Damian Hinds.)

Damian Collins: I have called this debate after several weeks in which FIFA, the governing body of world football, has once again been dragged through the mud. FIFA stumbles from one crisis to another, dogged by consistent allegations of bribery and corruption, involving some of its most senior officials, and unable to shake off the perception that it is a rotten organisation that is not fit to lead the world’s most popular game. It appears that some very ugly people have control of a beautiful game, and I believe that it is time that FIFA was subject to the full force of international law, not just left to investigate itself.
	At the heart of the current crisis lie the persistent claims of bribery and corruption surrounding the bidding process to host the World cup tournaments in 2018 and 2022. These are serious allegations—that millions of dollars were paid by bidding nations in bribes to members of the FIFA executive committee in return for their votes. These are not just private matters for the FIFA family, as its president, Sepp Blatter, seems to want the world to believe. They are potentially criminal matters, which are of interest to law enforcement agencies around the world. For several years the FBI has been running its own inquiry into the bidding process, investigating whether corrupt payments were made to officials in return for their votes using servers and payment systems based in the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
	In response to the widespread allegations that have been made, FIFA—through its ethics committee—launched its own investigation, led by the American attorney Michael Garcia. We were all promised that the process would get to the truth, that it would be transparent and that it would be independent from FIFA, but that has been far from the reality. FIFA has investigated itself, and has found itself to be not guilty. It set up a process which was always guaranteed to fail, and which is at the heart of my reason for initiating this debate. It was always going to fail because FIFA has no legal powers to pursue an investigation even against people within the organisation, let alone people outside it. It does not have the judicial powers that would enable it to request access to private correspondence and bank records. In fact, it could only request evidence that people were willing to supply.
	According to information published in the most recent edition of The Sunday Times, it was also clear that FIFA could offer no anonymity or protection from prosecution to people who complied with its requests and took part in the investigation. Indeed, members of the England bid team told the newspaper that they had felt able legally only to supply information for which FIFA asked, and had not felt able to volunteer information that would otherwise have been helpful.
	We know that the Russians told FIFA that all the computers containing e-mails and documents relating to their bid had been destroyed, and that they therefore could not comply with its request for information. As for the Qatar bid, we know that FIFA’s investigation
	report highlighted its concern about the role of consultants in that campaign, but stated that as those consultants had no official role in football, it had no jurisdiction to pursue them.
	What angered me, and angered many football fans around the world, was the fact that, instead of acknowledging the limitations of its own inquiry, FIFA pretended that this was the last word, that there was nothing more to be said, that the World cups would go ahead in Russia in 2018 and in Qatar in 2022, and that no action would be taken against the bidding nations—although there remained the option of taking action against individuals. FIFA seems to pursue a line which involves corporate innocence, but individual potential guilt that warrants further investigation.
	The world responded with alarm to the results of Michael Garcia’s inquiry. Of course, FIFA has banned the publication of the full Garcia report. Sepp Blatter is sitting on it personally, and does not want the full 430 pages ever to see the light of day. However, Hans-Joachim Eckert, chairman of the FIFA ethics committee, published a 43-page summary of the report, which Michael Garcia said contained
	“numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations”.
	FIFA has now realised that people will not buy its white-wash, and has handed over its own investigation of the allegations of bribery and corruption surrounding the World cup bidding process to the Swiss authorities and the Swiss Attorney-General, believing, it said, that the report contained evidence of “unlawful” activity. FIFA has also stated that other “relevant national investigatory authorities” have a responsibility to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption in the World cup bidding process.
	Over the past few weeks I have written to the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, asking him whether the SFO—as one of the '”relevant national investigatory authorities” described by FIFA—would look into these matters. He has assured me that the SFO has been monitoring the situation closely, and that it would act if it believed that it had the jurisdiction to do so. Furthermore, in a letter to me dated 25 November 2014, Alun Milford, the SFO’s general counsel, wrote that
	“every reasonable line of inquiry, including working closely with appropriate overseas authorities, is being pursued to ascertain whether the director has grounds to open an investigation.”
	I want to ask the Solicitor-General a number of questions. Can he confirm the following: first, that the Serious Fraud Office has entered into a process to determine whether or not it will open an inquiry or criminal investigation; secondly, whether the SFO has received a request for mutual legal assistance from other bodies, including the FBI; thirdly, whether the SFO has approached the FBI and the Swiss authorities regarding their investigations into FIFA; and fourthly, whether the SFO has, or might reasonably expect to, make a request to the Swiss authorities to view the Garcia report produced by the FIFA ethics committee?
	The SFO has the jurisdiction to investigate events involving UK companies and citizens around the world, and under the Bribery Act 2010 has far-reaching powers to investigate any organisation that has commercial operations within the UK. I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General could confirm that it does indeed
	enjoy those powers and that there is a substantial difference between the powers that existed before the Bribery Act was passed by Parliament and the situation now.
	A series of events falls within the jurisdiction of the SFO to investigate. We know from reports that the FBI has been working with the former FIFA official Chuck Blazer, that he has held meetings on behalf of the FBI where he has sought information from other football executives and other people he has met, and that he conducted some of these meetings, where he was under FBI surveillance, in London during the London Olympic games. Those meetings would be under the jurisdiction of the SFO and with the knowledge of the National Crime Agency, as is normal practice.
	We know from the reports published in The Sunday Times this weekend that the England bid team gathered intelligence from around the world into not just the activities of members of the FIFA executive committee, but the World cup bids being prepared by other nations. It was alleged in these reports that this information contained intelligence passed through the British diplomatic network and intelligence services back to the FA. This information has never been fully published.
	I served on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2011 when we conducted a brief inquiry into the FIFA bidding process and invited people to submit evidence. The FA had the chance to respond at that time and did not do so. We took evidence from Lord Triesman, where he laid out substantial allegations against members of the FIFA executive committee, in his view seeking bribes in return for their votes. The FA launched its own inquiry into that and made no reference at any time to this intelligence information that it had gathered. I certainly believe that that information should be made available to the SFO to support its investigations and inquiries and to help it determine whether it can open a criminal investigation.
	We know from Lord Triesman’s evidence that there were allegations against key FIFA executive committee members, including that Jack Warner—who is a senior member of FIFA, and who became embroiled in a scandal with Mohamed bin Hammam around the attempt to rig, as people saw it, the presidential elections—was at the heart of the substantial allegations made against the Qatar bid and that he received from Mohamed bin Hammam large payments that were intended both for himself and to be channelled to other FIFA executives. That is the substance and meat of the serious allegations that were made, and we know he had meetings with England officials during that bid process, including Lord Triesman, who states that Jack Warner effectively asked him for payment to secure rights to broadcast football matches in the Caribbean that Jack Warner already owned.
	We heard that UK companies were involved in the Qatar bid and that PR executives, including Mike Lee of Vero Communications, worked closely with the bid process. We also know that other executives and companies were involved, such as Nigel Rushman and Rushmans, which offered a specialist service. It helps its clients bid for major global events. On its website it states that it was cheering Qatar all the way in 2010—and there are other reports that it still works closely with Qatar—and that its services to clients boast
	“insightful people with enormous amounts of data and knowledge at their finger tips. Much of this sports event bidding information is not available elsewhere.”
	If it has relevant information related to the FIFA World cup bids, perhaps it would be interested in sharing some of that with the SFO. There is also the role played by people like Peter Hargitay from ECN consulting group, who made millions from its consultancy work for the Australian 2022 World cup bid, and had previously asked for over £4 million to do the same for the England 2018 bid.
	There is also the role of the Qatar bid whistleblower Phaedra Almajid, who provided information to The Sunday Times newspaper regarding the Qatar bid for the FIFA World cup, alleging that Mohamed bin Hammam, the former vice-president of FIFA, had established a network to support the payment of FIFA officials, to secure their votes for Qatar in the World cup bidding process. Phaedra Almajid gave evidence to Michael Garcia’s inquiry into this matter, including the reason why she had later retracted the evidence that she had first produced for the UK media as a whistleblower. Despite being promised anonymity by Michael Garcia, she was clearly identified in the summary of his report produced by Hans-Joachim Eckert. She feels that there has been a deliberate attempt to discredit her, and she has given me a statement to support that. In it, she discusses for the first time the pressure she was placed under to withdraw her allegations.
	That statement is relevant to the debate and to the jurisdiction of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate these matters, and I should like to share part of it with the House. She says:
	“I never set out to be a whistleblower. I have provided the information about what I witnessed as part of the Qatari bid in confidence, because I believe the World Cup bids should be won honestly. I continue to support an honestly awarded World Cup bid for the Middle East. The most publicised effort to discredit me relates to an affidavit I executed in July 2011. The facts surrounding that affidavit demonstrate that it was coerced and based on a promise that was never kept. I provided documents, emails, recordings and data to Mr Garcia showing the following facts:
	In early June 2011, a senior official of the Qatari bid contacted me, urging me to recant information I had provided anonymously to the British media in late 2010 and early 2011. Initially, I refused to recant, as I knew what I had witnessed. I was then informed that a legal injunction had been issued against me in the State of Qatar in the amount of one million dollars for breach of my non-disclosure agreement. The Qatari official threatened to enforce the judgment against me internationally. I finally agreed to sign a recanting affidavit upon the Qatari official’s promise that I would receive in exchange a legal letter that they would not sue me. Their agreement to this deal is confirmed in numerous documents and recordings.
	In early July 2011, a lawyer from a London law firm representing Qatar’s Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy came to Washington DC and presented an affidavit to me. I resisted signing it because it alleged that I had lied about what I had witnessed and altered documents, which I had not done. Finally, under threat of being sued and upon a promise that I would receive the legal letter, I agreed and signed the affidavit. I then requested my letter, but the Qatari officials changed the deal saying that, before I would receive it, I had to give media interviews about my affidavit, contrary to their promise of anonymity. After objecting, I gave those interviews, as the Qataris and their lawyer kept assuring me that I would receive the legal letter. Those assurances are recorded.
	In September 2011, as I was continuing to demand my legal letter, three FBI agents came to my house unannounced. I had not contacted them. I told them all I knew about the Qatari bid, the threats against me, the affidavit and the Qatari refusal to give me the legal letter. At their request, I agreed to co-operate with them. In October 2011, at the FBI’s request, I spoke to a Qatari official who confirmed that there was a deal to give me the legal
	letter in exchange for the affidavit. The FBI agents recorded that conversation on their equipment. I continued to demand my letter from the Qataris and their lawyers. Finally, in October 2011, instead of sending the promised legal letter, the London lawyers for the Qataris sent me a letter accusing me of harassing them and threatening to sue me if I continued contacting them. I discontinued demanding my legal letter under that new threat of being sued by the Qataris’ lawyers.”
	Ms Almajid does not name the London law firm in her statement, but I have been told that it was Olswang.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I sought his permission beforehand to intervene on him, and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech. He has outlined clearly the position that the whistleblower took in outlining what had been happening. Does he believe that it is now time for our Government to call on FIFA to give protection to whistleblowers, wherever they might be within that organisation, to ensure that they keep their jobs, despite what they have said, and that they are protected from prosecution?

Damian Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a serious point. That is at the heart of my reason for raising this matter in the House tonight and for contacting the Serious Fraud Office about it.
	What Phaedra Almajid’s story tells us is that she co-operated fully with Michael Garcia’s inquiry and feels that her evidence has not been treated seriously and that, if anything, FIFA sought to discredit her for coming forward and co-operating with its inquiry. It also demonstrates that the FIFA process offers no guarantees to whistleblowers—people coming forward with information—whereas if they approach the proper authorities in this country, such as the SFO, or the FBI in America, they could discuss in confidence serious matters of concern to them. That is why a proper investigation and inquiry led by international agencies, including the SFO, will be the only way to get to the truth, and to encourage whistleblowers and protect them in coming forward to share their information with us. I believe some of these whistleblowers have genuine grounds to be fearful of the consequences of coming forward.
	Other individuals supported the network that Phaedra Almajid describes and supported Mr Mohamed bin Hammam in his work, and little has been understood or acknowledged about them, and certainly not fully investigated. They include Najeeb Chirakal, who was suspended from football by FIFA in 2012 for failing to co-operate with its investigation into bin Hammam; Amadou Diallo, who worked for FIFA’s Goal Bureau for six years and was later alleged to be involved in bribing African football officials on behalf of the Qatar bid; Mohamed al-Mehshadi, a former FIFA Goal Bureau chairman and an insider who accompanied bin Hammam to key meetings in 2010 in Cairo and Moscow connected with the World cup bids; and Rahif Alameh, who resigned in 2012, having been for more than 50 years the general secretary of the Lebanese football association, following years of allegations of bribery and corruption.
	There is a huge list in press reports and documents of names of people and allegations of the roles they played in seeking to secure votes for money in the bidding process for the World cup, and I think we see a system that was corrupt. People have been asking whether it
	was the fault of individual nations bidding, but we see a total system that had been corrupted and by an organisation that people have no confidence in. In 2010, when the 22 members of the FIFA executive committee cast their votes, they were determining which countries should host the next two World cups. That was unprecedented, and people have their own ideas about the reasons for it. Since that time 18 of those 22 members have faced allegations of some sort or current investigations into their conduct and whether they were involved in some sort of scandal involving the way they cast their votes. Just less than a third of the 22—seven of them—have been forced out of football because of their actions and activities. They have been banned by FIFA and forced to stand down because of their involvement in practices that were not considered suitable for a member of the FIFA ethics committee. That includes people such as Jack Warner, Chuck Blazer and Mohamed bin Hammam.
	When we consider that 18 of the 22 face some sort of questioning of their role, that seven out of the 22 have resigned and that Russia and Qatar, coincidentally, both won the right to host the World cup by winning margins of six votes, we see why many people would say that the weight of allegations is so great and the stink of corruption that has stayed around this process for more than three years now is so strong that we can have no confidence in that process and therefore no confidence in the decision to award the World cup to those host countries. Those host countries deserve to have these allegations brought out and the world of football deserves to know what happened. If the SFO or the FBI were able to investigate these matters and bring criminal charges against people involved in that process, it would be impossible to see how it could continue. My concern and the reason for raising this tonight, is that without the involvement of organisations such as the SFO and the FBI, which is already involved, it seems impossible that we will ever get to that truth. It is only external pressure that will lead FIFA to change, and we need to act together to save football from FIFA.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and I congratulate him on his terrier-like tenaciousness in pursuit of this matter. It is a serious matter because football—the beautiful game—has occupied the lives and memories of millions of us. A lot of us, as children and young people, looked forward to the World cup, which came round every four years, with great enthusiasm. I must confess that rugby is my first love, but World cups very much formed part of my memory. That shows why this is serious, because anything that calls into question the integrity of those responsible for administering the biggest tournament in the world has to be a matter of huge public interest, both here and abroad.
	The issues that my hon. Friend raises tonight are clearly important. I have to say that it is not within my living memory that Wales has been in a World cup—1958 was the last occasion. None the less, it is right to say that I have had a fraternal interest in the prospects of the England team in all the World cups that I have watched over the years.
	But seriously, tonight we are here to deal with the question of jurisdiction and the potential role of British prosecuting authorities, which could include the Serious Fraud Office. I say that because the SFO has criteria that allow it to become involved in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. It is not perhaps correct to make an assumption that if criminal offences were disclosed within the jurisdiction that it would indeed be the SFO that would be the investigating authority. My hon. Friend is right to couch this debate tonight in the terms that he has, because what is being alleged is potentially serious fraud. The question is the position of British prosecutorial authorities in relation to that conduct wherever it was committed and at what time it was committed. I will deal in turn with the questions that he raises.
	My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the SFO has been following closely the emerging allegations about the bidding process, and that the director of the SFO, David Green, is considering whether it is appropriate to open a UK-based investigation. It would not be right of me to go into the detail, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the SFO is engaging with appropriate overseas authorities in this matter, and is seeking their co-operation in terms of the sharing of material that would allow the SFO to make an informed determination about whether there are reasonable grounds to investigate an alleged offence in this jurisdiction.

Damian Collins: Is the Solicitor-General able to say with which authority the SFO has been engaging?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend has echoed some of the detailed questions that he has asked about, and it would not be right of me either to confirm or deny the existence of any mutual legal assistance arrangements that may have been reached. That is an operational matter that is beyond my remit. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him in that respect, but what I will say in response to his main question about the process is that the SFO will consider all information brought to its attention, and that includes information from any alleged whistleblowers. The director may then decide whether it is appropriate to open an inquiry and whether he has jurisdiction to do so.
	The director has demonstrated that the SFO is well prepared to take on difficult and high-profile cases. Currently, there are investigations into LIBOR manipulation, Tesco, Rolls-Royce, Barclays, GlaxoSmithKline, and the manipulation of foreign exchange rates. Those are all matters of great public interest that have a considerable international dimension. I recognise that the FIFA matter falls very much into that category. But the jurisdictional issues that are at the core of this debate are complex.
	I am unable to comment on the allegations relating to the bidding processes for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World cups except to say that it is clearly in the interests of football generally for this matter to be resolved properly and for any wrongdoing to be fully investigated. That is why I fully support the move by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who has written to FIFA to ask for full disclosure of the Garcia report. FIFA has in the past asserted a commitment to being more transparent and accountable. Obviously, the best way to do that would be to release the full report. Members will be aware from media reports
	of the steps that FIFA has been taking in the past week or so and of the criminal complaint it has made to the Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland.
	As I have said, the jurisdictional issues are complex, but I shall dwell on them for a moment for my hon. Friend’s benefit. He has asked two questions, one about jurisdiction and another about the applicable law at the material time. FIFA’s headquarters, as we know, are in Switzerland, and it was in Zurich that the bidding process was concluded back in 2010. The FIFA executive committee comprises 28 employees originating from 27 different countries.
	I hope that hon. Members will agree that the SFO’s jurisdiction over any allegations surrounding the bidding process is not clear cut. It is entirely possible that allegations surrounding the behaviour of one country during the bidding process might be best dealt with by the authorities in that country, or that allegations relating to the process as a whole might be best dealt with by another. I accept, however, that my hon. Friend has raised his concerns that the constitution of FIFA has the effect of making it difficult for law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions to apply the law, but it is clear that FIFA’s constitution does not shield its members from criminal liability. The fact that the individual concerned might be a member of FIFA is irrelevant to the question of criminal jurisdiction, and when that is the case I would expect the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions concerned to work together to achieve the right results. If UK jurisdiction is engaged, the SFO will play its part.
	If the SFO uncovers offending over which our criminal courts have jurisdiction and that meets the director’s criteria, the director will consider whether to open an investigation, whether it points to wrongdoing abroad or here. Relevant to the decision would be the issue of whether the SFO would be the best placed body ultimately to investigate and prosecute offences. As I have said, that depends very much on the facts. Other international partners might prove to be better placed to investigate and prosecute.
	Let me deal with the applicable law. Bribery can be prosecuted under more than one piece of UK legislation, depending on the facts of the offence and its timing. The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. It has a more developed extraterritorial reach than its predecessors, but it is not retrospective and so applies only to offences committed wholly after that date. Actions before that date are covered by other legislation, which in the case of England and Wales law is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and its jurisdictional requirements are not identical. Therefore, as I have said, the timing of each allegedly corrupt act and its location affects the ability of the SFO to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute.
	Those are just some of the factors relating to jurisdiction and applicable law that might be relevant to the director of the SFO’s decision on whether to commence an investigation in the UK. Depending on the particular facts, UK legislation might not cover the allegations.
	Let me turn to the discretion of the director of the SFO. When determining whether to commence an investigation, the director must have “reasonable grounds”
	to suspect serious or complex fraud. Even when there are such grounds and the SFO case acceptance criteria are otherwise met, offences might still be able to be prosecuted in more than one jurisdiction. When that is the case, prosecutors will work together to determine where allegations are most suitably dealt with.
	A number of issues must be considered. Prosecutors need first to identify where a prosecution can take place and how many relevant jurisdictions there are. There is usually a preliminary presumption that prosecutions should take place in the jurisdiction where most of the criminality occurred, but other factors need consideration, such as delays that might be caused, the likely whereabouts of witnesses, evidence and suspects and so on.
	I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are anxious that these matters should be brought to a head, as time is ticking on and 2018 is not as far away as it seemed in 2010. We have had the Brazil world cup and are now moving on to the next round. But I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to be patient. As strong as his feelings are in relation to how FIFA has conduced itself, it is right—and an important feature of our criminal justice system—that decisions on whether the SFO is to proceed, and if so how, are for the director of the SFO. As I have said, his office is following developments very closely.
	In any event, quite apart from its own processes, FIFA has made a referral to the Attorney-General’s office in Switzerland, and the Swiss are therefore already seized of some aspects of the matter. The SFO continues its own review and stands ready in principle to work alongside colleagues in Switzerland and around the world on this matter.

Damian Collins: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be possible for the SFO to make a request to the Swiss authorities to see the Garcia report, and that the decision could be made without referral to FIFA?

Robert Buckland: As I have said, issues of mutual legal assistance are very much operational matters for the SFO, but in principle such requests can be made. However, I think that it is right for us entirely to cede responsibility for those decisions to the director and to the SFO itself. The important principle here is the independence of prosecutorial authorities, as I know my hon. Friend understands very well.
	I will draw my remarks to a close by once again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing this issue, which is not just of passing concern, but of huge public concern, to the attention of the House and for talking frankly about the position of whistleblowers. I reassure him that the prosecutorial authorities in this country have well established procedures and protocols for dealing with alleged whistleblowers, from whichever source they come, and that, as I have said, the SFO would properly consider any information brought to its attention that may be material to these matters.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.